Model rail 263 plan (Aug 2019)

[Pmorgancym]

As my son seems.to.be getting moreninterested in have a layout that's a bit more realistic, I've been casting about for a suitably interesting 6x4 layout.

I happened upon a Paul A. Lunn design in an old model rail.  Its based on the Young Winstone theme, but I envisage it as a preserved raikway theme.

Trouble is, I've been playing on Scram and I can't make it fit 6x4!  Any thoughts.

 

[DCB]

I don't see why not.  Inner may well  be 1st Radius.  Peco set track curved points and curves with a bit of flexi and a hacksaw should do it. but I would use 2nd radius at the expense of platform width and the width of the fiddle yard.

Edited October 23, 2022 by DCB

[Butler Henderson]

Sort of got it to work with 2nd, 3rd and 4th radius curves  but non standard straights on the inner of the upper loop and the outer of bottom loop but you would use flex anyway I would have thought for those at least.

[DCB]

I did a doodle myself on Anyrail but I wasn't getting anywhere and I think # Butler Henderson's plan really demonstrates that the original had 1st radius curves included, that's if the original plan was actually scaled out, which I now sort of doubt...

I can't improve on # Butler Henderson's drawing.   I can make it a lot worse though.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Paul usually uses the Hornby ¼ scale track pieces to draw his plans. There might be more tolerance with these than in the computer software. Note that NSP on the plan means a non-standard piece of (straight) track; the article does say 2nd radius curves are used.

[Butler Henderson]

i used Anyrail and deliberately avoided the 1st radius curves. Thinking about it I woiuld be tempted to ditch the two curved points on the left side and link the loops together as a pure double track section.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Butler Henderson

[Butler Henderson]

On 26/10/2022 at 16:23, D9020 Nimbus said:

Paul usually uses the Hornby ¼ scale track pieces to draw his plans. There might be more tolerance with these than in the computer software. Note that NSP on the plan means a non-standard piece of (straight) track; the article does say 2nd radius curves are used.

Think it must mean a minimum of 2nd radius as it definately does not work only using them. I realised the top loop in my plan was slightly tighter in clearance between the tracks than the Setrack standards so came up with a variant which is very slightly wider instead with non standard straights on the inside of each loop

[Dzine]

Hi Pmorgancym,  I'm surprised you're having trouble making the plan fit, as Nimbus says, I always use Hornby 1/4 scale templates to test smaller entry-level designs out.  I tend to avoid first radius curves these days and usually suggest second as a minimum for everything.  If I do use anything but second radius I usually add a relevant number e.g. 1, 3, or 4 .  I notice there is one section marked NSP - Non standard piece.   If you want to  PM me I'll try and dig out the original drawing and we can have a chat by phone.  Hope this helps, kind regards Paul    

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Dzine said:

Hi Pmorgancym,  I'm surprised you're having trouble making the plan fit, as Nimbus says, I always use Hornby 1/4 scale templates to test smaller entry-level designs out.  I tend to avoid first radius curves these days and usually suggest second as a minimum for everything.  If I do use anything but second radius I usually add a relevant number e.g. 1, 3, or 4 .  I notice there is one section marked NSP - Non standard piece.   If you want to  PM me I'll try and dig out the original drawing and we can have a chat by phone.  Hope this helps, kind regards Paul    

 

Could you continue the discussion here, please? I think we'd all be interested to see how that plan is formed as shown in the original drawing.

 

Could you piece it together using the Hornby templates and send us a photo, Paul?

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Harlequin

[Dzine]

Hi Phil, Yes, will see what I can manage....might take a little while.  Kind regards Paul

[Dzine]

Hi Folks, Hornby 1/4 scale plans as promised.  The first is as originally designed, the second makes a slight possible change to the curved point area bottom right.  Note the solitary, slightly isolated, single straight would need to be a custom length section and save for a 'Y' curve, top right, all curves are second radius.  There is certainly an element of 'fudging' with the design which can be done in reality though not on computer, also be aware there are numerous, very small, differences in the length and geometry in a number of Peco and Hornby rigid track sections. You can see from the tape measure the design fits in a quarter scale space of 18" x 1'.   If I can help further in any way please contact me, kindest regards Paul

[Butler Henderson]

One fudge is obviously the angle of the inner loop track away from the curved point that has been left unmade. That was the issue I had with Anyrail trying to get it to work with 2nd radius.

[Dzine]

2 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

One fudge is obviously the angle of the inner loop track away from the curved point that has been left unmade. That was the issue I had with Anyrail trying to get it to work with 2nd radius.

One possibility would be to shorten the curved track, a little, to the right of the curved point in question, which would then move slightly anti-clockwise, resulting in the outer end of the point, into the inner loop, being at a better angle (almost parallel with the outer loop).  Kind regards Paul

[DCB]

On 30/10/2022 at 16:15, Dzine said:

One possibility would be to shorten the curved track, a little, to the right of the curved point in question, which would then move slightly anti-clockwise, resulting in the outer end of the point, into the inner loop, being at a better angle (almost parallel with the outer loop).  Kind regards Paul

You are getting in to the realms of advanced bodery, like what I do.  Chopping bits off points is a great way to ruin points so I start with very second hand items.  The big problem with the original design is the distance between the inner tracks of the "Oval" looks to be around 16" or  less than 2nd radius, so I don't think the plan was drawn accurately.   That said it only needs a bit of flexi and a loss of some of the space at the edges to make it work.

[Dzine]

On 02/11/2022 at 03:29, DCB said:

You are getting in to the realms of advanced bodery, like what I do.  Chopping bits off points is a great way to ruin points so I start with very second hand items.  The big problem with the original design is the distance between the inner tracks of the "Oval" looks to be around 16" or  less than 2nd radius, so I don't think the plan was drawn accurately.   That said it only needs a bit of flexi and a loss of some of the space at the edges to make it work.

Hi DCB,  The plan you see in the magazine was, as usual, arrived at by tracing around Hornby 1/4 scale templates then drawing a centre line, free hand, up the middle of all the track components.  I'm not suggesting chopping points at entry-level, rather cutting the plain curve to the right of the point.  2nd radius is shown in the Peco catalogue as being 438mm (17 3/16th of an inch). If memory serves me right I think Peco used to show circle measurements to a centre line which means the inside radius would be about 16 1/2"  and indeed I can confirm this to be true when measuring actual track.  Do you think Hornby 1/4 scale templates might be wrong?  Kind regards Paul.  

[DCB]

58 minutes ago, Dzine said:

Hi DCB,  The plan you see in the magazine was, as usual, arrived at by tracing around Hornby 1/4 scale templates then drawing a centre line, free hand, up the middle of all the track components.  I'm not suggesting chopping points at entry-level, rather cutting the plain curve to the right of the point.  2nd radius is shown in the Peco catalogue as being 438mm (17 3/16th of an inch). If memory serves me right I think Peco used to show circle measurements to a centre line which means the inside radius would be about 16 1/2"  and indeed I can confirm this to be true when measuring actual track.  Do you think Hornby 1/4 scale templates might be wrong?  Kind regards Paul.  

Yes!. Last bit first,   Yes I think that any error gets magnified times four, even when laying set track you can get the ends of a circle a couple of inches too tight or too loose.   

Curve, the plain curve is sharper radius than the point so shortening the orange curve might work but the shortening the black will bring the left hand end of the point ever closer to the bottom track.

I don't use templates, I did have some for 1/12th scale years ago for drawing but I memorised the angles for streamline and the lengths 16mm for 2ft  19mm for 3ft 21mm for large 22mm for long crossings from a CJ Freezer article where he gave all the lengths and  angles he used for his 60 Plans series, 60 plans  for small layouts etc 
I currently  draw on my laptop using a mix of Anyrail for points and settrack curves points and freehand for flexi

[Dzine]

17 hours ago, DCB said:

Yes!. Last bit first,   Yes I think that any error gets magnified times four, even when laying set track you can get the ends of a circle a couple of inches too tight or too loose.   

Curve, the plain curve is sharper radius than the point so shortening the orange curve might work but the shortening the black will bring the left hand end of the point ever closer to the bottom track.

I don't use templates, I did have some for 1/12th scale years ago for drawing but I memorised the angles for streamline and the lengths 16mm for 2ft  19mm for 3ft 21mm for large 22mm for long crossings from a CJ Freezer article where he gave all the lengths and  angles he used for his 60 Plans series, 60 plans  for small layouts etc 
I currently  draw on my laptop using a mix of Anyrail for points and settrack curves points and freehand for flexi

Hi DCB,  In the first image, here is the relevant corner of my 'Young Winston'  track plan, made up from actual track components.  All are second radius curves including the R643 or ST-227 (depending on which manufacturer you use) shown to imply the neighbouring non-standard piece (NSP).  The second image, using two coaches, shows the limit of clearance between both tracks.  I find on travels with my Layout Planning and Design Clinic there are many misnomers about the curved point.  In reality the inner curve is completely 2nd radius, the outer curve is part second radius curve together with a short section of straight track (where the point blades are).  I've shown this in the third and fourth images by overlaying relevant curved sections.  I hope this helps for both you and Pmorgancym, please message again if either of you need more help.  Kind regards Paul

[Dzine]

Hi Folks, Since writing the above post it might be worth saying that on a number of occasions some computer software packages have been known to be inaccurate.  The worst case I've experienced was in Building Micro Layouts, pages 60 and 61.  It's a triangular layout design and if you compare the track plan with the 3D you'll see there's a track missing left hand side.  The publisher, who was working from my scale drawings, said it wasn't possible to create the plan as seen in the 3D, so I drew him a full size paper template from real track components and he still couldn't make it work!  Though I have to say upon reflection he's made it worse, I think, by getting the vertical baseboard length shorter than it should be.  Such are the joys of track planning.  Kind regards Paul

[Pmorgancym]

I feel slightly guilty as if I've ghosted this thread, but I never got any notifications that there were any replies! So thanks for all who played around and replied and to Paul for replying.

 

I'm now reading through with interest.  My first thought is I'm using PECO, does the turnout geometry still work out?  (I'm sure there's  a Hornby/peco  conversion chart out there)

 

(On a personal level I've always struggled to with converting plans to physical form!)

[Chimer]

24 minutes ago, Pmorgancym said:

My first thought is I'm using PECO, does the turnout geometry still work out? 

 

Yes, I believe the geometry is identical

[RobinofLoxley]

Looking at this again, I am a bit puzzled why in what is essentially a table top layout size, needing full access to 3 sides, why you would specify either or both the cassette or loco lift sections.

 

Otherwise, I would have to say that I would avoid anything with setrack curved points due to the probability of derailments. Unfortunately its not really an option to replace them with Streamline items as they arent really compatible with the layout geometry. To eliminate all the curved points but retaining the same geometry (although without the concerns as to whether it joins up properly) requires a space of 2.1M x 1.4M.

 

 

[Butler Henderson]

Re Peco Setrack the one difference to Hornbys is that there is no exact direct equivalent for the R610 38mm straight  - Peco have ST-203 41mm and ST-202 79mm

[Dzine]

On 31/12/2022 at 16:12, Pmorgancym said:

I feel slightly guilty as if I've ghosted this thread, but I never got any notifications that there were any replies! So thanks for all who played around and replied and to Paul for replying.

 

I'm now reading through with interest.  My first thought is I'm using PECO, does the turnout geometry still work out?  (I'm sure there's  a Hornby/peco  conversion chart out there)

 

(On a personal level I've always struggled to with converting plans to physical form!)

Hi there, don't feel bad about things, what matters is that you get a good working layout.  Many of Hornby and Peco's rigid geometry track matches perfectly and you'll have no problem with the curved points in terms of their geometry. They can be notorious for derailments, partly because there's a manufacturing design issue with them, which I've explained in a previous issue of  BRM magazine (if I can track it down, and it's from some considerable time ago, I'll post it on here).  Derailment is not particularly just to do with the curved point, but how larger locomotives are made these days, the problem, if memory serves me right, only exists when travelling from the toe end and issues around centrifugal force.  I guess the advice here is to set the curve up and try the loco's you intend using and see how you get on.  If it helps, please PM and we can have chat by phone.  Kindest regards Paul  

[Dzine]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Looking at this again, I am a bit puzzled why in what is essentially a table top layout size, needing full access to 3 sides, why you would specify either or both the cassette or loco lift sections.

 

Otherwise, I would have to say that I would avoid anything with setrack curved points due to the probability of derailments. Unfortunately its not really an option to replace them with Streamline items as they arent really compatible with the layout geometry. To eliminate all the curved points but retaining the same geometry (although without the concerns as to whether it joins up properly) requires a space of 2.1M x 1.4M.

 

 

Hi RobinofLoxley, The non-scenic sidings and loco lifts were specified to help accommodate all the films trains; 14xx, O8 shunter, colliery loco, and 9F  and so, at other times, it could be operated, outside of film constraints, as the Longmoor Military Railway and the ex-GWR Neath and Brecon line. Kind regards Paul

[Dzine]

1 hour ago, Butler Henderson said:

Re Peco Setrack the one difference to Hornbys is that there is no exact direct equivalent for the R610 38mm straight  - Peco have ST-203 41mm and ST-202 79mm

Hi Butler Henderson, absolutely right and even worse it's in the straights where most of the discrepancies occur.  Now if we start from the premise that both Peco and Hornby's standard straight are the same length at 168mm, but when it comes to the shorter sections is where the mischief happens so, Peco's ST-203 is 41mm long, Hornby's equivalent is 38mm long.  Multiply 41mm by four you get 164mm (not a 168mm of the standard straight.  Do the same again with Hornby, their short straight is 38mm long, multiply by four and you get 152mm (much less than the standard straight).  Then you've Peco's ST-202 at 79mm, divide by two at 39 mm which doesn't match up to the ST203 at 41mm.  If that isn't enough, two times 79mm equals 158mm which is 10mm short of the standard straight.  Whilst all this can be a problem there are some benefits relating to points and loops, but it will take forever to explain.  Hope this helps as far as it goes.  Kind regards Paul