Design Ideas welcome

[Tallpaul69]

Firstly, apologies for not updating for several weeks but a number of things that I will not bore you with, but nothing horrible, I am glad to say, have got in the way of timetabling.

 

I am now well on the way to producing the mainline timetable but the work on it has prompted some rethinking on a number of working assumptions:-

 

1) Having realised very early on that I would not be able to run a 24 hour cycle timetable in real time, I planned to run at 4 times real time and thus run 8 hours of timetable in 2 hours, and over three 2 hour sessions run through a whole 24 hours. This still seemed ok after producing the branch timetable, but moving to the mainline, I soon realised that this was unrealistic.

For instance, running 4 train movements , 2 up and 2 down that occurred within 10 minutes in 2.5 minutes is unlikely to work.

 

2) So could I run the busy periods in real time and speed up the quieter times? A bit more work on the timetable showed that a mainline, even if it was only portraying the slow (or as the GWR and WR termed them, relief lines), and the joining or terminating branch traffic, the only quiet periods were during parts of the evening and overnight. 

 

3) So I have decided that my timetable will run form 4am to midnight. The 20 hours will be divided into 10 off  2 hour sessions run in real time. Thus if I run one session in the morning and one in the afternoon it will take 5 days to run through a day. The two hour sessions will be run as two separate hours with (say) a 15 minute break between. A rule will be that while stock and locos can be added/removed between 2 hour sessions this will not be allowed except for problem items between the two hour sub sessions.

Realistically life will get in the way, so it might be several weeks before I am able to repeat a cycle. This will ensure I am not board with running the same thing repeatedly!

 

4) in addition as a change, after completing a 2 hour session, I will I will sometimes set two expresses running round and round while I have a shunting session. I will also to up the storage capacity, try to arrange up and down freights to stable in the up and down loops particularly overnight, and where possible between 2 hour sessions.

 

Will this work, I hope so, but when the timetable is completed, then we will see??

 

Best regards

Paul    

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

Picking up from your DCC control topic, here's the sort of thing you could do to reduce stacking trains in the storage loops:

 

It sacrifices some capacity in favour of flexibility and, hopefully, easier control. The new crossovers at G and H divide the loops into smaller sections and give all the storage sections direct access to the main running lines.

 

The crossovers are set up so that stored trains can exit onto the main running lines easily but entering the forward sections requires that the rearward ones are empty. So some stacking and moving up would still be needed.

 

There's nothing to prevent you from stacking within the smaller sections, or even allowing long trains to foul the crossover points.

 

The exact formations could all be altered, of course. (And a three-way point in the centre would save some space.)

 

[Tallpaul69]

10 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

Picking up from your DCC control topic, here's the sort of thing you could do to reduce stacking trains in the storage loops:

 

It sacrifices some capacity in favour of flexibility and, hopefully, easier control. The new crossovers at G and H divide the loops into smaller sections and give all the storage sections direct access to the main running lines.

 

The crossovers are set up so that stored trains can exit onto the main running lines easily but entering the forward sections requires that the rearward ones are empty. So some stacking and moving up would still be needed.

 

There's nothing to prevent you from stacking within the smaller sections, or even allowing long trains to foul the crossover points.

 

The exact formations could all be altered, of course. (And a three-way point in the centre would save some space.)

 

Thanks Phil, I will have a look at this with the current state of the timetable!

 

It might work well with my ideas of using cameras to show where trains are.

 

What are the downsides of 3 way points? I think they could be good for saving space?

 

Many thanks

Cheers

Paul,

 

 

[Tallpaul69]

Hi All,

 

At last I have for you the attached first part of the first version of my timetable that I feel is good enough to present to you!

 

It covers From 04:00 to 13:00 (a bit later for the down line), and is not yet divided into the two hour operating periods that I talked about in my earlier posting.

There is probably one or two abbreviations that I have not captured in my footnotes, for which I apologise, and will crack these in a later edition!

 

I hope Phil, that you can use this to see how the mainline fiddle yards might work?

The loco and set nos. need  more work, as do the freights calling in and dropping/picking up wagons.

 

All trains will circulate a number of times except the Titled trains, of which, because the main Lines are not modelled, there are just a token couple of examples. These will circulate once, pause in the fiddle yards, and reverse for a further run through at the appropriate times.

 

I will issue the second part of the day once I have digested any comments on this first part.

 

Enjoy your modelling,

Best regards

Paul

Thames Valley Main Line AM timetable 1.xlsx

[Harlequin]

Hi Paul,

 

Sorry but I haven't got time to extract the info from the timetables to assess the storage capacity. To be honest you could probably do it better anyway since you created the timetable!

 

My suggestion would be to create a graphical representation (no surprise there!) using bars on a time axis - a bit like a Gantt chart. Label the bars with train details but colour them according to what area of the layout they are standing in, or moving through, at the time.

 

The colour coding can be refined later on to describe individual loops and sidings. You could also assign colours for movements on the two main loops and the branch.

 

Then you can count the number bars with the same colour that occur at any given time and that is the required capacity for that part of the layout. (Counting the bars that represent movements will show scheduling conflicts.)

 

Here's a mock-up to show the sort of thing I'm thinking of:

Light blue represents your down storage loops, green the yard down loop, red for circulating on the down line.

 

(I bet there's purpose-made timetabling software out there to do this...)

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by Harlequin
Added mockup

[Tallpaul69]

34 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

Sorry but I haven't got time to extract the info from the timetables to assess the storage capacity. To be honest you could probably do it better anyway since you created the timetable!

 

My suggestion would be to create a graphical representation (no surprise there!) using bars on a time axis - a bit like a Gantt chart. Label the bars with train details but colour them according to what area of the layout they are standing in, or moving through, at the time.

 

The colour coding can be refined later on to describe individual loops and sidings. You could also assign colours for movements on the two main loops and the branch.

 

Then you can count the number bars with the same colour that occur at any given time and that is the required capacity for that part of the layout. (Counting the bars that represent movements will show scheduling conflicts.)

 

I'll try to do a mock-up to show the sort of thing I'm thinking of.

 

(I bet there's purpose-made timetabling software out there to do this...)

 

No Problem Phil,

 

I need to do more work on the timetable anyway.

The first thing will be to finish the second half of the day.

Then I need to turn it into a model timetable so that the time table lines read something like:-

 

Train No

Loco turn No

Stock set No

Previous Train No

Down Fiddle yard dept.

Maidenhead arr.

Maidenhead dept.

Maidenhead yard dept.

Down Fiddle yard arr. 

Next Train No

 

This will make it clearer what is happening in the fiddle yard.

 

The above will keep me busy for a few days, then I will see what I can do with your train bars idea!

 

There probably is something out there that will do this job, but unless other readers know of anything, I think the time spent trying to investigate the possibilities is better spent getting on with the job.

 

So watch this space, but don't hold your breathe!

 

Best regards

Paul

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi Paul,

 

Sorry but I haven't got time to extract the info from the timetables to assess the storage capacity. To be honest you could probably do it better anyway since you created the timetable!

 

My suggestion would be to create a graphical representation (no surprise there!) using bars on a time axis - a bit like a Gantt chart. Label the bars with train details but colour them according to what area of the layout they are standing in, or moving through, at the time.

 

The colour coding can be refined later on to describe individual loops and sidings. You could also assign colours for movements on the two main loops and the branch.

 

Then you can count the number bars with the same colour that occur at any given time and that is the required capacity for that part of the layout. (Counting the bars that represent movements will show scheduling conflicts.)

 

Here's a mock-up to show the sort of thing I'm thinking of:

Light blue represents your down storage loops, green the yard down loop, red for circulating on the down line.

 

(I bet there's purpose-made timetabling software out there to do this...)

 

My timetabling man used to do the bar charts for our WTT using Word.   We used them for platform occupation where they are an excellent planning tool but we initially drew them by hand when doing any complex actual planning work as it was quicker than any software could manage and a pencil and rubber were a lot cheaper than some fancy bespoke software back in the 1990s.  One package being developed back then had a bar chart facility - if it was ever completed - although a Dutch diagramming package used bar charts and worked fairly well but it was set up for diagramming so wouldn't do for this.

 

Stuff changed at a rapid rate so it might well come in some of today's software but your talking really big money for TT planning software.  And doing a bar chart like this really needs a good drag and drop feature to make it work - pencil and paper still remains a quick and cheap option I reckon.

[Tallpaul69]

Once again other activities and domestic requirements have got in the way of progress!

 

So I have done little except some doodling with the timetable work, but  watching Phil's Hannet Purney thread has made me think about a few aspects of Lower Thames Valley.

Like Phil, I had been puzzling how to avoid the conventional but non prototypical bridge or tunnel scenic breaks.

 

So my current thinking, reinforced a week ago by a visit to Maidenhead, is that the left hand scenic break would be  station buildings rather than a bridge,  and the right hand one houses and a cutting rather than a tunnel. The branch scenic break would also be houses.

The houses would probably be half relief.

The branch in reality does have a bridge, but the need for the branch to rise to get to the branch yard makes the road approach to a bridge too difficult.

 

The next stage is a bit of scale model making to see how the scenic breaks might work.

 

Further on my visit to Maidenhead, it is a shame that electrification has meant the end of the Train Shed over the branch platform, but it is great that the goods yard area has been rejuvenated with the sidings for the Elizabeth line. I also quite like the reversing siding between the relief lines to the west of the station.

 

Hope everyone's modeling is progressing?

 

Cheers

Paul

[Tallpaul69]

On ‎23‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 12:57, Harlequin said:

The idea behind having the branch line change level was to increase the storage capacity vertically rather than try to fit it all in on the one level. Since it's important to keep all the storage lines accessible that means that the most sensible arrangement is for the smaller branch storage yard to be above the mainline storage.

 

A descending gradient running inside the main layout circuits would have to travel further round the room to achieve the clearance, as you point out. I think it would be prone to knocks as you reach over it to do things on the main layout, things getting left on the branch line or dropping down onto it would be more likely to cause derailments and I think it would be more difficult to make it work scenically.

 

Having the branch line rise around the outside gives maximum length to achieve the clearance and creates a better "staged" view of traffic on the branch line, IMHO.

 

It also feels right to me that a branch line has a real terminus (although non-scenic) to avoid the temptation/danger of traffic you had sent up the branch suddenly appearing on the main line!

 

So I don't think that a descending inner branch or an outer branch on the same level would give an advantage overall.

Hi Phil and other watchers of this thread.

Is it really six moths since Phil wrote the above comments? Doesn't time fly in the summer?

 

I have quoted Phil's last post partly to ease us all back into the subject at hand and partly to say that I do agree with his logic as expressed in the post.

 

So to move things on I now have to finish composing my working time table for the layout from the real 1960s one and then see what compromises are needed to run it on Lower Thames Yard. I then have to look at the fit to my alternative plan.

Just to remind other readers, I also have another plan which answers my brief, but views things from the opposite side of the tracks. Unfortunately I do not own that plan, so I can't share it at present.

Both plans have their pros and cons, so it will come down to which needs the least compromises on the timetable, and which I feel answers the brief best.

 

I hope to update further in a couple of weeks, but I am also wrestling with plans to sound chip locos plus the need to get paint jobs on some locos, (not one of my skills), and the best way forward to chip/ re motor my Lima  fleet, (also not one of my skills!).

 

Cheers for now

Paul 

 

[Tallpaul69]

Hi All,

 

I have decided that my layout adventure has reached the stage where it would be sensible to amalgamate my several threads into one, which I hope to find easier to keep up with!

 

So I will over the next few days be starting a new thread in the Layout Topics area titled "Lower Thames Valley".

 

My thanks to everyone who has contributed here, even those who disagreed with me!

 

Keep smiling

 

Best regards

Paul

[mdvle]

At the end of the day all we can do is provide advice, it is up to you (or whoever is designing a layout) to sift through the advice and decide what works for you or doesn't.

 

More often that not it seems the process is less about the advice, but about forcing the prospective layout owner to work through the issues themselves as to what they want and what compromises they can live with.

 

But, most importantly, you have gone through that process and are now taking the next step of actually building the layout.  That in the end will be the final arbitrator of whether you made the right decisions or not - does it work in reality for you.

 

So congratulations on actually deciding to build a layout, and I look forward to your progress reports.