Eastwood Town - A tribute to Gordon's modelling.

[gordon s]

Just stumbled across this site....

 

Apologies if someone has flagged it up already.  Seems like life is throwing everything in our direction right now and I keep missing bits of information.

 

http://www.6g.nwrail.org.uk/steamlocomotivedepotlayout.htm

 

The film of 6170 shows the flow to be...

 

1. Turn

2. Water

3. Coaling

4. Ash pits

5. Drop fire and deal with the ash pan

6. Onto shed.

 

A couple of great B & W videos as well....

 

 

 

Well worth a look...

[Buhar]

Of course, tank engines don't always need to turn and in some cases, eg working a line with a steep gradient, they would hardly ever turn making sure they were always facing uphill.

[gordon s]

That is actually the best way of doing things in my opinion.  However it does have a slight disadvantage as there appears to be room for only a single line round the outside of the running lines which would make it difficult to work and not the safest arrangement in the real world.  However I would keep at least one of the present connections as a way in/out in the event of problems.

 

Thanks guys.  Just taken a look on Templot and I can run two lines round the outside on the main lines.  The cut out in the top left is for a radiator and than could be made slightly smaller if required.  At worst, lines would only be close to the edge at the right hand end of the cut out , so that can easily be dealt with.

 

Access to ET teminus means every platform can be accessed from the inboard line.  Like wise exit from every platform can be via the outboard line.

 

OK, a train comes in and carriages are sent away.  There may be carriage sidings to the left of the raised access to ET on the left.  There is certainly room for two or three and that will give added interest with flat carriage sidings next to the 1:100 up gradient to the terminus.

 

Would the loco then depart using the inboard line running in the wrong direction as it were or would it use the correct line running using the outboard line?

 

If the latter then I will need to add a crossover to get from the inside to the outer line to subsequently access the new shed road.  I quite like the idea of a LH turnout from the inner line and then a crossing directly over the outer line to the shed road.  The alternative would be a pair of crossovers.

 

The shed could then go up into the RH top corner with the turntable and coaling stage situated lower, perhaps on the next board down on the right hand side.  I'm quite excited about the amount of space available in this area and the various buildings etc could be spread out over a reasonable area.

 

With any luck I can retain the link from the turntable direct to Platform 1 of ET terminus.

 

Of course until it is mapped out in Templot, I have no idea of the radii etc involved, so fingers crossed the next couple of days will prove fruitful.

[Siberian Snooper]

I look forward too seeing the results of your temploting session.

[islandbridgejct]

That is actually the best way of doing things in my opinion.  However it does have a slight disadvantage as there appears to be room for only a single line round the outside of the running lines which would make it difficult to work and not the safest arrangement in the real world.  However I would keep at least one of the present connections as a way in/out in the event of problems.

 

Yes, I see the safety issue, I think. Would a further trailing crossover off the up line, crossing the down line by a diamond to access the loco road help? Then a loco going on shed could come out of the station on the up road, and wait for the signal to reverse across the down road into the loco road. A loco coming off shed could come down the loco road, then reverse onto the down main and back onto its train. That would eliminate any wrong road running on the main lines, though you would still have to reverse onto or off platform.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Shunt signalling should be able to have light loco movements to/from the shed running wrong line as required. If the shed was down the line away from the terminus then the LE moves would make sense following the correct lines. But if you're going to go for the trailing access (where purple turns to black on the approach line) I'd still class that as within the confines of ET's approach point work so wrong line working is ok.

 

if going for the kick back approach method for the shed but wanting more options, you could also add a trailing point on the departure line, crossing the arrival line, as an alternative shed access option (so trailing access to/from both the up and down mainlines where purple turns to black). This would allow simultaneous shed access moves from any platforms. Bare in mind how the 16t's are going to access the coal tower too if you only have a short kick back option.

[Satan's Goldfish]

I think islandbridgejct and I just posted the same idea at the same time....

[martin_wynne]

Hi Gordon,

 

As I posted previously there is a much shorter route on/off shed if you put in a link across from the bay platform to the shed:

 

 

Just 2 more turnouts and 2 short diamonds, and a few small adjustments to the existing pointwork.

 

When the bay platform is occupied your longer route out beyond the station throat is still available. The bay platform could perhaps be lengthened a little to maintain the capacity clear of the shed access. I still prefer this option to the others being suggested. It involves a few reversals, but so do the other options.

 

 

 

Apologies for the 90-degree rotation, but your preference for having the plan the wrong way up is still doin me head in.

 

Previous posts about this:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/3422-eastwood-town-help-needed-with-redesign-of-shed-and-goods-area/page-96&do=findComment&comment=2111396

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/3422-eastwood-town-help-needed-with-redesign-of-shed-and-goods-area/page-95&do=findComment&comment=2111124

 

Perhaps the main thing missing from your plan is a couple of carriage sidings. They don't necessarily need to be at the top terminus level, empty stock workings with the station pilot down to one of the lower levels would add operational interest.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks guys.  Just taken a look on Templot and I can run two lines round the outside on the main lines.  The cut out in the top left is for a radiator and than could be made slightly smaller if required.  At worst, lines would only be close to the edge at the right hand end of the cut out , so that can easily be dealt with.

 

Access to ET teminus means every platform can be accessed from the inboard line.  Like wise exit from every platform can be via the outboard line.

 

OK, a train comes in and carriages are sent away.  There may be carriage sidings to the left of the raised access to ET on the left.  There is certainly room for two or three and that will give added interest with flat carriage sidings next to the 1:100 up gradient to the terminus.

 

Would the loco then depart using the inboard line running in the wrong direction as it were or would it use the correct line running using the outboard line?

 

If the latter then I will need to add a crossover to get from the inside to the outer line to subsequently access the new shed road.  I quite like the idea of a LH turnout from the inner line and then a crossing directly over the outer line to the shed road.  The alternative would be a pair of crossovers.

 

The shed could then go up into the RH top corner with the turntable and coaling stage situated lower, perhaps on the next board down on the right hand side.  I'm quite excited about the amount of space available in this area and the various buildings etc could be spread out over a reasonable area.

 

With any luck I can retain the link from the turntable direct to Platform 1 of ET terminus.

 

Of course until it is mapped out in Templot, I have no idea of the radii etc involved, so fingers crossed the next couple of days will prove fruitful.

 

Gordon - for the sake of convenience I'll call the direction trains take going away from the terminus 'Down' and that coming towards it 'Up'.

 

In order to connect to the 'shed lines' the simplest arrangement is a trailing connection from the Down Line crossing the Up Line by either a diamond or, preferably a single slip which would also make the shed connection part of a running line trailing crossover.  This then means that any engine going to shed leaves the terminus in the proper direction onto the Down Line, goes clear of tne trailing connection and then crosses the Up Line to reach the shed lines crossing immediately onto the inbound line.

 

An engine coming from shed will come from the outbound shed line through the crossing on the Up Line and onto the Down Line clear of the trailing connection - it would then either proceed in the wrong direction Up the Down Line towards one side of the terminus or crossover via the slip connection to the Up Line to get to the other side of the terminus.

 

There is also a possibility of a facing connection off the Up Line to (only) the inbound shed line.  In reality the only justification for this is for light engines arriving from the rest of the layout or possibly stores & coal etc trains running straight in.  Operationally in a normal working situation it is no use at all for an engine coming off shed as it would unavoidably, and unnecessarily, take it onto a running line in the wrong direction which would potentially (and probably) interfere with the signalling acceptance of trains towards the terminus.

 

In my opinion inwards stores/coal and any outwards empties/wagons of ash would best be dealt with through the goods line arriving and departing as part of normal trains and then being shunted across to the shed by a pilot engine.

 

 

Hope this helps a bit.

[Simon Hartshorne]

All good stuff and absolutely fascinating watching the process from idea to build. Just a minor point, and please excuse me if anyone has raised this before; should the shed have a dead end road off it? Apart from anything else any shunt move within the shed has the potential to run into the station if things go wrong, certainly in modern arrangements it would be unusual for there not to be a neck with points set into the neck as a default and only changed to allow locos off shed. Delete / ignore as appropriate.

[gordon s]

First and foremost a big thank you for all your suggestions.  They have certainly been food for thought.

 

Apologies Martin, with all the things that have been going on at home, I had forgotten your earlier suggestion.  The real major fault with my earlier design is that the main access to the shed was essentially from the platform one road.  The length of that was around 8'6" so if a seven coach train plus a tender loco was in platform one, access to the shed was difficult if not impossible.  There was a second turnout further round the curve, but that was straight into the turntable.  I liked your design, Martin as I'm a sucker for non standard (RTR) track formations.  The difficulty for me was building the turnout/crossing combinations in a relatively small area and the electrical issues in wiring a pair of diamond crossings.

 

Of course non of those are insurmountable, but it still didn't deal with the platform one issue.

 

I know several of you have made similar suggestions in going back round the curve and once I had got to grips with those suggestions, that route made sense.  Thanks Mike for giving me that option in words I could get my head round easily.

 

So back to the drawing board and my book shelf.  I have vols 1-3 of Great Northern Engine Sheds by Griffiths and Cooper and the solution was staring me in the face.  Hopefully using a print of this part of their plans won't be an issue as it serves to illustrate my thoughts well.

 

 

Those of you who know me well, will know my old stomping ground of Wood Green, Hornsey etc and I have fond memories of walking across Hornsey footbridge to bunk into the shed whilst listening to the Cup Final on my transistor radio.  It was '58 and just after the Munich disaster. Man Utd were playing Bolton Wanderers in the final.  I think all of us were willing Utd to win after Munich, but they went down 2-0.  3rd May 1958 and if I close my eyes, I can see and smell that day, so Hornsey has lots of fond memories for me.

 

There is much to like about the plan and it occurred to me that a mirror image might just be the answer.  A few clicks on my keyboard and this came out....

 

 

Clearly I couldn't build Hornsey in the space available, but perhaps a Hornsey light may just fit in.  An hour or so with Templot and here's my first pass.  Feel free to add comments, good or bad...:-)

 

Access is via a trailing crossover plus slip and a real plus is a relief road from the turntable directly into platform one.  The four road shed fits in the right direction and the coaling stage fits in the front.  I need to look closely at the detailing re water cranes, ash pits, inspection pits etc, but the fundamental track plan seems to fit OK.

 

 

Over to you....

[BoD]

You will, of course, need two or three to operate the shed as you watch the trains go by.

[gordon s]

You'll be welcome at any time...

[The Stationmaster]

I reckon you've cracked it Gordon.  

 

The only change you might like to consider - and it obviously depends how things come out on a full scale Templot - is to take the double track shed line a bit closer to the running lines connection main but that is more a matter of operational convenience rather than something hard & fast.

 

In addition both the shed lines (where down to single) and the turntable relief access line will need to be trapped where they join the running lines.  That apart the proof of any layout pudding is whether or not it can be easily signalled in the style of whichever piece of the railway network you are out to portray and the answer to that is affirmative so welcome to 'Eastwood Town Engine Shed Junction'/'Eastwood Town No.1'/'Engine Shed Junction'/ whatever else takes your fancy in the relevant style.

[gordon s]

Thanks Mike.  The difficulty in moving the crossing/slip further round the curve is trying to maintain a 3' radius for the slip curve itself and also the curve into the shed then drops below 3'. It may well be Martin can wave his magic wand and come up with a way that will allow it to move closer, but I'm at the limit of my Templot capabilities.

 

One thing I will do is move the turnout right at the shed entrance inboard.  To get from one pair of shed roads to the other means going back to the first turnout.  Moving it inboard shortens that length or run, but also increases the length of plain track between the slip and the first turnout giving more space before the main line.  That will also free up space for two catch points as you suggest.

[martin_wynne]

It may well be Martin can wave his magic wand and come up with a way that will allow it to move closer.

 

Hi Gordon,

 

Where is the vertical curve on the purple tracks at the top of the bank? You wouldn't want to have a slip (or even a turnout) on a vertical curve, especially on a sharp curve. The purple tracks must drop sufficiently to run below the platform buffers stops, so I doubt there is much scope to shorten the gradient.

 

With Engine Shed Junction where you have it now, it would be possible to have the shed at a slightly lower level than the station, which may add visual interest. The same could apply to the goods yard area.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[PhilH]

My head hurts.

[gordon s]

The vertical curve is almost at the ends of the platforms in ET terminus.  (Approximately on the 9' grid line from the bottom of the plan).

 

I've done that deliberately so all pointwork etc is on a flat surface, albeit on a gradient.

[gordon s]

I like the idea of the shed being slightly lower than the station.  The only issue then will be a gradient down from the station to the turntable.  That piece of track is roughly 1700mm.  Allowing for vertical curves either end, I suspect I could accommodate a drop of 15mm.

 

Just checked and the difference in height between the slip and the top level platform is 50mm, so the shed area would sit 35mm above the slip and 15mm below the platforms.  Could be possible......

[martin_wynne]

I've done that deliberately so all pointwork etc is on a flat surface, albeit on a gradient.

 

Hi Gordon,

 

It is only a flat surface if straight -- a curved gradient is not a flat surface, it is helical (twisting). For gentle curves this doesn't usually matter too much, but it's not a good idea to have pointwork on a sharply curved gradient.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Hi Gordon,

 

How keen are you on the turntable? How about a triangle instead, which is not often modelled?

 

 

Depending on the levels, a link or crossover to the outer platform line is still possible.

 

Or if you like turntables, have both:

 

 

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited February 24, 2016 by martin_wynne

[islandbridgejct]

I like what you've done with the shed layout - it looks really well that way round.

 

I'm afraid I drafted my last post an hour before I sent it, so you'd already picked up the ball and run with it. Sorry if it seems a bit out of place.

 

I note I'm using different up / down terminology from Stationmaster. I was working on the basis that Eastwood is not London, so down is towards the buffers and up is away. Calling them the Inner and outer lines is probably clearer. (But I'm absolutely chuffed to have the Stationmaster agreeing with me: professional approval no less - I must have been paying some attention in class. 8) )

 

I've only one more suggestion, and I'll make it visually:

 

 

The green line would enable you to have a trailing crossover into each line if you wanted, and - if you swapped them around - you could bring a train of loco coal in on the outer line and a tank engine could pull it out on the same road and onto the spur, backing it down to the coaling tower from there. It might be less accident prone than bringing it into the goods line and then pulling it out with your tank engine around the inner line before reversing the wagons across the diamond. Again, just an armchair suggestion.

 

Alan

[gordon s]

Thanks Martin and Alan for your suggestions.  I've just been looking at the gradient issue.  The line up to ET terminus is 50mm above the datum where it crosses under the platform ends and as such the platforms need have a minimum of 70mm clearance.  The position of the proposed slip is around 40mm higher, so the gradient needs to extend further around the curve.  I decided to take it right through to the platform end to avoid vertical curves on or near pointwork and give additional clearance beneath the platforms.

 

I understand the point you are making Martin re a curve on a gradient becoming a helix, but felt the numbers on a 1:100 gradient to be so small not to be an issue.  Taking a typical C10 turnout, I'm guessing the length to be around 450mm, meaning one end is 4.5mm higher than the other.  Providing the track is straight and the turnout remains on the same plane as it were, the height shouldn't make a difference.  

 

Now this is where the maths is outside my capabilities.  Putting the C10 turnout on a 914mm (3') radius curve does introduce an element of twist, but is that really sufficient to give problems?

 

I don't know the answer, but your reply would suggest it will be a problem.  I'm tempted to built a mock up with an old turnout to test, but at this stage I'm curious about the numbers and how much of an issue it would be.

 

Either way it won't stop the build as I can find a way round it, even if it means reducing the length of the platforms, so they stop short of the lower lines.  I would prefer not to, but am interested in the numbers behind the theory.  Are they small enough to be ignored on the real gradient/radius number on ET?

 

My trackbed is rock solid and 'flat' even on gradients.  Running quality is paramount to me and I do take a lot of care setting up all the trackbed modules to avoid problems at a later date.

 

The triangle is an interesting format, but introduces a whole stack of reverse moves where the original idea of the shed redesign was to reduce the number of changes in direction and improve access.  Of course the unknown is the Metalsmith's turntable.  I've been waiting for that to arrive for around five years and it may never appear.  That leaves me with the Fleischmann one or the new Peco motorised version.  Neither are ideal.  The Fleischmann one works but is of continental design and somewhat heavy in it's design even with bridge modifications.

 

Should the Metalsmiths one not go into production then I may consider the reversing triangle as an option.

 

Alan, I will take a look at your headshunt idea, but I have already cut the trackbed for that section, so that would need some additional rework.  Not out of the question, but it will need further thought re the benefit versus hassle of rework.

[jon_1066]

The triangle isn't really any more moves if you think about it.  Loco is released goes wrong line into the MPD then forwards to coal, water, ash, etc.  It then reverses into the limb of the triangle and out of the MPD to reverse back onto a train

 

With a turntable depending where it is situated it could even be more moves.  Loco is released goes wrong line into the MPD then forwards to coal, water, ash, etc.  It then reverses onto the turntable, is turned then heads out of the MPD to reverse back onto a train.

[JeffP]

The triangle would, I believe, have been the preferred option in that corner location. Turntables had a nasty habit of becoming un-usable.....

Any shed with the space preferred a triangle.