ShinyShoe Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Hi Guys Been lurking behind the scenes here for a while. I got a present in September (New Baby Boy) and he will require a train set to play with when he's older ;-) So I dropped some hints and was given a Hornby Southern Star Set at Christmas by my OH. However, with a little person running round there is a shortage of space... ... so i'm proposing a couple of modular permananet layouts. I'm probably aiming modern era. And probably urban as space is a premium. I'd love to be able to run a Pendilino or something ideally with it shooting into a tunnel and reappearing from a sifferent runnel in an unexpected location... ...but space does not allow! SO for now I'm thinking of an Urban Scene inspired by South Oak Rd (http://scalescenes.com/southoakroad/) But first module as a goods yard, second as a station. if a third ever happens probably also a station allowing end to end via the goods yard. If a 4th happened then Dock / Canal Workings... But that would be a 16ft length! I'm from Glasgow originally and much of my train experience hails from there although I now live in Durham. I was planning to do some 3-4 foot long x 1 foot modular assemblies. i'm not sure I follow the logic of fiddle yards so the plan was the goods yard would be the fiddle yard BUT I might link the modules and have some hidden sidings in tunnels... all that comes later. If I do need a fiddle yard it will be made to fold under the main board. For now here's a proposed 1m x 30cm board (which is actually measuring in at 1.1m). You'll see its a combination of the standard inglenook and almost a timesaver. Is it reasonable? I have an urge to have some levels and I seem to recall lines in glasgow that ran lower than the others so my aim is the main line (a dual line, with overhead power) would sit in a lower track at the back. Then there is a slight incline up to some sidings/goods yard. A small retaining wall divides them. In real measurements you are talking a 4ft wall? But I have some questions: * Firstly is the layout workable? What happens to sidings on slopes? (I assume real trains have brakes that make this less of an issue!) * Secondly - I know nothing about signals... where should they be? What should the look like? Does every siding need a signal, or can you work by eye? Have put some signals on but shunting signals confuse me totally... (Oh and where can I get them for less than £12 a pop as it looks like I'm gonna need a lot!) Anytrain doesn't have proper UK signals so i've used some others graphically here for the concept.) I'm thinking night scheme with lights. Should back drops just be a dark blue shade? Do I need anything beyond the viaduct etc? Back is engineering brick wall... What about behind that DCC or not? I'm seriously into computers... I have a feeling in my waters that DCC might take some of the fun out of running this? I'd want everything to be automatic -- signals etc... Here's a different representation of the image in case it helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Madog Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Interesting design, although I personally would prefer to have my shunting leads a minimum of 1 loco + 1 car long. Why should DCC take the fun out of operating this layout? It minimizes your wiring efforts, enhances loco performance and only takes away the need to throw toggle switches to direct the power. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon A Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 You have crammed a lot in a small space. I model 50s /60s era and in those days a double slip in a main running line was avoided at all costs. You could keep the same track plan and operate as a single track main line. You should also have trap points fitted to the sidings to protect the running lines from accidents. Are your sidings long enough, including buffer stops that take up space? Modern wagons tend to be long wheel base / bogie. DCC will give you flexibility of operation without all the mess of wiring and switches required for DC operation. There are a number of computer interfaces for DCC operation on the market. Gordon A Bristol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 First up DCC vs DC - Forget all this nonsense about less wiring for DCC because it is just that - in fact you probably will have more wires. One thing DCC does give you is more control and no isolated/section switching - not that I can see any places on this layout where you have space to put any section breaks. I also think there is too much track, too many points and the sidings are too small to do anything practical. In OO 3ft is too short for an Inglenook let alone a practical Timesaver. However there is nothing wrong with the layout as a learning experience. Back to the question of DCC - I wouldn't do it on this layout - but there is nothing wrong with it if you like the frills that DCC can bring and money is no object (eg sound, lights and more than one loco ticking over) it would certainly make the point operation simpler. It sounds to me as if you have already made up your mind on DCC anyway. One other problem - most modern stock and locos don't particularly like No 1 radius settrack points (it looks to me as if they are in use here) and especially when you have so many such points arranged like you have. But something like an 08 shunte would be quite happy trundling back and forth in and out of every siding. The use of only short wheel base wagons has already been highlighted and the possible need for buffer stops - though they are not an absolute essential. The other potential issue is clearance. The sidings must be both long enough to take a wagon and for other stock to clear the point and adjacent rails. Oh and as for sidings on gradients - model railway stock has one big problem here - you have no brakes to apply. So stock has a habit to free wheel when unhitched from a loco. There are tricks like sponges and springs that can be used to prevent this but they usually cause other issues (mainly tripping up on pointwork). Despite all this - there is no need to give up. It could still be a great leaning project to begin with, concentrating on the overall appearance and effect rather than operation. If space is such a limitation have you ruled out a 009 or N project? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 In order to demonstrate to yourself what the other posters have said, take your Sothern Star track and lay out the turnout with some track either side of it and look at the clearance you'll need to have stock passing along the adjacent track. Measure the distance of free track necessary (from the toe of the point to the end of the wagon in the siding) and check your measurements. I think, along with the others, that you'll need to revisit your ideas of what can be laid out in such an area. From the look of it you're only going to effectively be able to run round a single wagon, so marshalling a train is going to be a challenge. You'll have to prove it for yourself, though as scaled plans can be very misleading. Get a bit of paper full size (Lining paper from a wallpaper shop) and draw it out full size and you can then place stock on the plan. You can then see for yourself if it's what you want or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyShoe Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 Hi guys Thanks for the feedback. I was aware of the long wheelbase issue. Perhaps its my niavity of eras, I was figuring the short wheel base stock might still be usable? When was the switch in wheelbase... I could live with both!. I don't yet have a diesel loco so was just working on the length of the 0-4-0 in the stock I have. Did look at some big diesels (maybe a Class 31) in shop yesterday (BTW - Hobycraft had quite a lot of stuff at greater than 50% off) but they were nearly 30cm long so I thought they'd kill my layout! I was thinking a short dumpy shunter which looking at the hcart Hornby gave me is a Class 08 - is that not modern era? I thought I'd set the track up to do the standard inglenook dimension (using short wheel base) but perhaps I've not... Technically its 3ft 7 in length - but I do know she's small.. First up DCC vs DC - Forget all this nonsense about less wiring for DCC because it is just that - in fact you probably will have more wires. One thing DCC does give you is more control and no isolated/section switching - not that I can see any places on this layout where you have space to put any section breaks. At the moment I would only expect one shunter running. But in the future (especially if I ever get the second module with a station) I'd want to run a passenger train through on the main line too during shunting ops. But to me that means isolating probably the top mainline from the bottom side although I can see I could have 'busy' day with a shunter waiting to bring oil out of the terminal etc a passenger traing going through the top line, and another on the bottom line with a final shunter waiting to come from the inglenook... One other problem - most modern stock and locos don't particularly like No 1 radius settrack points (it looks to me as if they are in use here) and especially when you have so many such points arranged like you have. But something like an 08 shunte would be quite happy trundling back and forth in and out of every siding. I think everything is Peco Code 75 which I thought was OK. The curves had radiuses > 500 so again thought they would be OK. buffer stops - though they are not an absolute essential Depening on my gradients they might be!! I hadn't fully apreciated that the buffers usually use up length of rail... do the prototypers not know I'm short of space!! BUT - would the basic timber built buffer be an option for me? That said the oil tank siding could extend a tad if need be to put in buffers but I was thinking it would only have one tanker at it... the northern most of the inglenook lines could actually be extended into the Arch of the viaduct with a train workshop option so the buffer would be in the arch. The other one the arch needs to be bricked up as the arch is not complete at the front. So the buffer may need to be on the brick work! Have thought about N. But other half bought OO and to be fait when small guy gets his hands on things bigger will be slightly more robust plus there is more thomas stuff for OO and I guess he'll want to destroy any attempt to keep era specific!! Anyway having OO stock for me allows options for him with Thomas in the future. Plus I'm clumsy so bigger things may be better! I model 50s /60s era and in those days a double slip in a main running line was avoided at all costs. Whats the more modern day view on double slips in a running line? Are they still to be avoided? Whats the problem? High speed derailments? You should also have trap points fitted to the sidings to protect the running lines from accidents. mmm.... since I have gradients that sounds like it might be wise. BUT what do they look like? There seems to be lots of ways of achieving it. But is there an off the shelf option that doesn't mean making the siding longer? There are a number of computer interfaces for DCC operation on the market Yeh I know - but they all look at first glance at least as though they just allow a laptop to do what you'd do with the controller. I'd far rather tell the computer what movements I want and let it make the necessary. The fun would be in programming that... Off to play as you suggest with my bits of line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyShoe Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 Thanks for the heads up - my line was a tad short, but I've only had to add an extra few centimetres to get what was needed. Anyrail couldn't do the trap points so have redrawn in Xtrkcad (what a joy that was!) curiously it now has the layout on ~ 1.3m which is 4ft 3in. Using small wheel base stock this will work for the 5-3-3 Inglenook and the dimensions used for a timesaver fit too. Would appreciate advice on the era / use of small wheel base in modern? Have I captured everything everyone suggested? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilEakins Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Hi ShinyShoe Sorry to do this to you after all your trouble getting the trap points in ...... but you only need one between the southern sidings and the main line, situated between the point and the double slip. Phil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 The problem with putting a trap point in is that it will reduce the practical length of both of those sidings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Have I captured everything everyone suggested? You can still only tun round somethig as long as the red rectangle I've marked. Looks like one four wheeled wagon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 There is a way to reduce the length required, but it involves using a sector plate to replace a point. See A TAILORED DESIGN THAT PACKS IN A LOT OF ACTION on http://www.carendt.u...e56a/index.html which would give you a trackplan closer to the size you were looking for - although it will mean using 0-4-0 locos and short wheelbase wagons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 CB - provided the points are set correctly, there is sufficient clearance, and you don't mind blocking those points, you should be able to run around 2 wagons and possibly 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 CB - ... and you don't mind blocking those points, you should be able to run around 2 wagons and possibly 3 But the initial sketches said teh layout was to be fully signalled - and that means not blocking points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Ah - forgot about the signalling! - apologoosies Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Worry not Jack - but I agree with you and think the OP will have to look at a traverser or sector plate to get anything more than a single wagon train in this sort of length Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyShoe Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 You can still only tun round somethig as long as the red rectangle I've marked. Looks like one four wheeled wagon. Yip. But the whole design has been premised on a 4 wheeled wagon design and timesaver only has 1 spot in that place normally from what I've read? To keep the layout small enough it has to be 20ft wagons on really, with a small loco like the 0-4-0 or a 08 diesel. I'm not yet familliar enough with the whole shunting puzzle thing and running around. BUT why can't I run around by puting the cars in the blue pos'n? CB - ... and you don't mind blocking those points, you should be able to run around 2 wagons and possibly 3 But the initial sketches said teh layout was to be fully signalled - and that means not blocking points. Hadn't realised ssignaling was going to complicate things like that! I assume its not the done thing to just stick all the lights to danger while you run round ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyShoe Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 Sorry to do this to you after all your trouble getting the trap points in ...... but you only need one between the southern sidings and the main line, situated between the point and the double slip. Hi Phil - Yeh I figured that - but bizarrely this produces less available length. I suspect the prototypers could build it in between the points and the double switch without adding any extra length but to do it with stock parts moves the points closer to the west and shortens the sidings...# The advantage of using XtrkCad is I can add some electronic trains and run some tests on the track... I'm sure it wont be perfect for testing clearances etc but its probably as good as me testing on bits of printed paper. The problem with putting a trap point in is that it will reduce the practical length of both of those sidings. ...In practical terms it doesn't really loose that much! Because on the first design there was a 79mm straight in there which when I layed it out on paper as suggested the clearances meant I was only using about 30mm of that straight. I'm planning to use a Peko SL84/85 which is 104mm long but looks as though I would get at least 20-30mm of that as useable track before the catch. So its only loosing ~ 20mm of what would be usable anyway. Puting them on the other side of the points would loose 104mm of usable rail. I was tempted to dio what some people do and just glue a bit of rail in, but I think there may be a genuine advantage to having trap points given my gradients. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I'm not yet familliar enough with the whole shunting puzzle thing and running around. BUT why can't I run around by puting the cars in the blue pos'n? Let's look at the geometry. When you run round you move somethng along a curved track which means that some parts of the thing you're moving move sideways. When this starts to interfere with that which you've left on the straight track you have problems. The only safe way of ensuring that you'll have enough clearance is to leave things on the portion of track that's parallel. That means before the track starts to curve and that means clear of the point blades. Wagons come in finite lengths - and two take up twice the length of one (fairly obvious), so you're not going to get more in that space. Even if you swap the line you're running round from the one indicated to that parallel the same geometry still applies so you still have one wagon length to play with. And You wanted automation and signalling. It may be possible to program the automation and the signalling, but unless you have some sort of position and vehicle identity detection mechanism then you lose control as the computer will assume that things are in the right position but no knowledge (from feedback as described) to confirm that they are so. If reality gets out of phase with what the computer thinks reality is then you have a Jurassic Park situation. Have a look at Jack's plans - you'll get more than one wagon in a train but you may have to sacrifice automation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyShoe Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 There is a way to reduce the length required, but it involves using a sector plate to replace a point. See A TAILORED DESIGN THAT PACKS IN A LOT OF ACTION on http://www.carendt.u...e56a/index.html which would give you a trackplan closer to the size you were looking for - although it will mean using 0-4-0 locos and short wheelbase wagons Ah... while I have less of an issue with using short wheel based stock in a modern era set up, it makes me cringe when I see engineering solutions that just don't exist in the real world! Even turn tables which I know did exist but weren't that common cause me some issues! Don't know why! On an off set fiddle yard they are fine. While I don't want a fiddle yard in the true sense, I'm now thinking I might have a hinged track to run trains out onto. I might also use a box file as a cartridge to run things into. But I don't want to cheat the shunting puzzle with these! Does a sector plate really save more space than a wye? Or is that just because you can move the train on the track? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Ah... while I have less of an issue with using short wheel based stock in a modern era set up, it makes me cringe when I see engineering solutions that just don't exist in the real world! Even turn tables which I know did exist but weren't that common cause me some issues! Don't know why! On an off set fiddle yard they are fine. But I think we all contend that without recourse to these compromise solutions you aren't going to have much effective action on your layout While I don't want a fiddle yard in the true sense, I'm now thinking I might have a hinged track to run trains out onto. I might also use a box file as a cartridge to run things into. But I don't want to cheat the shunting puzzle with these! It's your train set and you run it as you think fit. However you did ask for advice. Does a sector plate really save more space than a wye? Or is that just because you can move the train on the track? It saves the length of the turnout. What you're doing is to take the length of track beyond the turnout and swivel it. This means that you gain at least the length of the turnout in your shunting regim, and much of the reverse curve as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium nightstar.train Posted January 3, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 3, 2011 One comment i would have is that in your original plan it looks like the gradient falls from left to right. So if you have wagons in the two sidings on the left they will want to run onto the mainline and over the catch points. If you reverse the gradient to fall right to left then the wagons on the left will want to roll into the buffers, which is much easier. I have a station on a gradient the wrong way and have to use cocktail sticks and things to stop the coaches rolling off when i am running round, it's very annoying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyShoe Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 One comment i would have is that in your original plan it looks like the gradient falls from left to right. So if you have wagons in the two sidings on the left they will want to run onto the mainline and over the catch points. If you reverse the gradient to fall right to left then the wagons on the left will want to roll into the buffers, which is much easier. I have a station on a gradient the wrong way and have to use cocktail sticks and things to stop the coaches rolling off when i am running round, it's very annoying. The gradient runs from the mainline (lower) to the yard (higher) (Basically the main line is in a cutting). Its prototyped on memories of polmadie depot in Glasgow, although they are 20 year old memories! I have tweaked the gardients slightly - at the oil terminal it is even lower (I decided oil tankers running into the main line was a bad plan!) The lines all dip for the last car length at the buffers so hopefully 3 cars joined together on a siding will be held there. That will of course be tested on base board before setting in glue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.