RMweb Gold PhilH Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) That's going to be a mighty convoluted journey for a loco to get to/from shed to/from the bottom three terminus roads. Edited September 7, 2012 by PhilH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 Thanks Phil. Nothing is set in concrete in this area, so open to suggestions, particularly with from your good self. What do you suggest without making massive changes to the terminus approach? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 That's going to be a mighty convoluted journey for a loco to get to/from shed to/from the bottom three terminus roads. Hi Gordon, Why not switch the depot round so that there's no reversal involved at all, ie a lead off where your pink turns to green but still heading in that direction? This would then put the depot alongside the carriage sidings; you could then move the viaduct scene round 90degs clockwise. Although we modellers often love to put depots alongside stations, many were often a mile or so down the line away from the terminus and this would give you a chance to replicate that. It would also give you an uninterrupted view of your station which you've obviously gone to some pains to set out as elegantly as the space will allow. As with others contributing to this discussion - just a thought! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 Do you mean something like this? Loads of work to do to see if it pans out, but might be a possibility. Also had a call from young Mr H with some ideas. It even be possible to take it across to the next line and use a half scissors. Food for thought, either way. As I said, this bit is some way away, so I'll look at it again when the time comes. Thanks for the input guys. Much appreciated. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Yeah, that's it! I'd be tempted to straighten it out a bit as well. Given that it's a depot, you could introduce a tighter curve to get locos onto the depot (nice contrast with more sweeping flow of the mainlines). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2012 Hi Gordon, Strange as it may sound, you can ease the gradient by making the lower level even lower. Then you don't have to allow for the length of the vertical curves at each end of the gradient: In other words, if the track continues to drop as it enters at X, and reaches the lower level only somewhere further along (Y), you can measure to X as part of the gradient. If the track has to be at the bottom level at X you must shorten the effective length of gradient to allow space for a vertical curve before X. Likewise at the top, if the bottom level is more than 70mm below the terminus, you can start the vertical curve before you reach the bridge and still reach a bare 70mm clearance there (or maybe even less with some nifty metal plate construction). The result then is that the entire distance from the bridge to X can be calculated as a simple incline for 70mm drop, instead of a shorter distance allowing for vertical curves at each end. regards, Martin. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 Trying to get my head round that one Martin. At point X the line must be 70mm below the terminus board. That is fixed and cannot be changed. If I took Y lower than 70mm, then you are right, the start of the gradient could move to just after the last crossover leaving the terminus and gain a couple of feet run down from the overbridge to point X. This could mean the track at point Y could be say 90mm below the terminus track, but point Y would still have to be a minimum of 70mm. As it stands I have 23' between the overbridge and the terminus, which gives me 1:100. Roughly speaking the distance between X & Y is say 13'. If I need to drop an additional 20mm then 13' would be roughly 1:200 between point X and Y. This would allow a gentler take up on the gradient, but the change between X and the overbridge will only move from 1:100 to 1:108. Any gain is worthwhile, I agree, but is that what you mean? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Hi Gordon, How much allowance are you making for the vertical curves at each end of your 7000mm (23ft)? In 4mm scale I wouldn't normally recommend less than 30000mm radius (100ft) for the vertical curves, which for 1:100 gives you a length of 300mm and a drop of 1.5mm in that length at each end. So your actual gradient between them is 67mm drop in 6400mm = 1:95. If you increase the level difference you can place the vertical curves outside the 7000mm (23ft) and the gradient then becomes 70mm in 7000mm = 1:100. Not a big difference, but enough to be worthwhile -- and you gain the benefit of increased clearance below the terminus. regards, Martin. Edited September 7, 2012 by martin_wynne 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 I think I can see where you're coming from, so bear with me for a minute or two. From the existing overbridge to the dive under at the terminus is 7m. Lowering the green road will allow the start of the down gradient to move back 600mm increasing the run to 7600mm. From the terminus end, a vertical curve as you suggest will take up 300mm to drop 1.5mm. That leaves a distance to X of 7300mm (7600-300) in which to drop 68.5mm to clear the underside of the terminus. Doh! In actual fact it is 82mm drop as I'd forgotten the 12mm ply trackbed thickness, so the drop distance is 80.5mm....On a run of 7300 that is a gradient of 1:90, not quite the 1:100 I had hoped for, but acceptable. There is only a small area of track that crosses under the terminus and that is at the right hand end. The track along the bottom is adjacent to the terminus board but 82mm lower than the terminus level and will be visible for access and track cleaning. OK, having drawn it out, I think I get what you are saying. According to my calculations, the clearance at X will now be 74.5mm and the depth of the lower boards 113mm lower. Of course that now means cutting the legs down on the storage area I've just built... No, I can't do that as those tracks go over the banister rail and that's a fixed height. OK, raise the terminus by the same difference. Might be possible but could give me problems with the loss of height under the sloping eaves.... No wonder I have no hair left..... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2012 No, I can't do that as those tracks go over the banister rail and that's a fixed height. Didn't stop you before... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffP Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) That looks really interesting, with lots of operating potential. PLEASE finish it. As regards release crossovers, couldn't you have them and make them wire in tube and done by hand? Seems a small price to pay for what would a) look prototypical, and b ) ease the operating more. Edited September 7, 2012 by JeffP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 That looks really interesting, with lots of operating potential. PLEASE finish it. As regards release crossovers, couldn't you have them and make them wire in tube and done by hand? Seems a small price to pay for what would a) look prototypical, and b ) ease the operating more. PLEASE finish it.....Has my wife been talking to you, Jeff? Or maybe you are my wife... Wire in tube may be possible, Jeff, so thanks for that. I do agree it would be better, but was struggling with the routing underneath... Behave yourself, Mr H... I can't go through the banisters this time as the boards are scenic boards, not hidden spirals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 link Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Hi Gordon, Like most of us your main problem boils down to not having enough space, obviously I do not know your circumstances but have you enough space in your garden for a purpose built railway room ? Just a thought . ATB, Martyn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony_S Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2012 Will the new one be portable so it can be exhibited? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 Hi Gordon, Like most of us your main problem boils down to not having enough space, obviously I do not know your circumstances but have you enough space in your garden for a purpose built railway room ? Just a thought . ATB, Martyn. That's a complete no no on two fronts Martyn. One is my wife and the second a 3000 gallon fish pond and it's contents... Will the new one be portable so it can be exhibited? Now I know you're taking the p*** Tony.... ...but it did occur to me to look at how it is put together. I'm really impressed with these BB's. Very light, even with a 12mm top and totally rigid and flat. It's all in the egg box construction, but really does work. So there is an opportunity to make it removeable, rather than exhibition based, whereas previous incarnations have been built like battleships and could not be moved.....other than to the tip, but that doesn't count. I guess it the additional work that's putting me off in terms of wiring and track alignment, not to mention the scenic stuff if I ever get that far... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2012 I am in awe - really! - of your tenacity in spending so many hours of your life planning the best layout that you can, Gordon, but as is always the case with such mega-layouts, I wonder about how you intend to operate it? I accept that there will be days when, as I think Cyril Freezer once put it, you just want to let trains rip. A pair of smashing classic expresses circulating endlessly in opposing directions does sound jolly attractive, sure. But that terminus looks like a lot of work - great, plenty of potential, we all say. I'm sure you will have looked closely at John Elliott's Bradfield, Gloucester Square, which makes operation of a realistic timetable the key driver for the whole layout. But that layout, despite beautiful modelling and a most interesting terminus, is really quite compact - John and his lady take the thing to exhibitions, after all. In short, my message is - by all means build an empire. But 15 storage roads with a turntable requires an operator all its own. So does the terminus. Do you have a cadre of seriously competent friends who will turn up sufficiently often to make all your hard work sit up and talk? 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2012 Will the new one be portable so it can be exhibited? I think you'll find Gordon's layouts have been exhibited several times at the local tip. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 That's generally the idea Ian. I have loads of stock, too much if I'm honest, so want to store a lot of it on the layout and ready to run as it were. Take a look at Peterborough North and that yard is probably twice the size and easily filled. Just watching a couple of trains trundling round the loop will keep me happy for a while, but there will be loads to do in the terminus, although I accept as a singleton, it will be one loco in steam whilst everything in the terminus will stand still. However, I like the idea of running nights, even if it is only once a month or when guests appear. I enjoy a beer like most guys so will be happy to accommodate ER's and other mates should they pass through. I could happily keep 4/5 operators fully occupied. Two in the terminus controlling in and out movements, one in the shed and another on the yard/loops. I'd rather that than a small branch with just one solo operator. Nothing wrong with that, if that's what floats your boat, but not for me. There's three layouts I have been privileged to see first hand. Tetley Mills and Peterborough North and my all time favourite, Borchester Market. All are extensive and have the option of a single operator or a group, so that's the thinking behind ET. I've always been a bit of a free spirit and whilst I admire timetable operation and Great Northern's tremendous attention to period, I would find that really restricting, so unless the mood takes me, it will always be free running, with the handcuffs only coming on when needed for a shoot should that nice Mr Nevard return... Like everything in life, attitudes and circumstances change, so I'm hoping ET will have many guises in years to come. Don't be surprised to see AC4400's and Trinity hoppers trundling round the loops as they remind me a very special holiday in Vancouver. In any case, what I do in private is my business.... I'm flattered to hear the word exhibition, but I'm not that competent and like most people on here, wouldn't be too pleased to hear people pull it apart, if it gives me tremendous pleasure. It also means being away from home at weekends and I've spent endless days away when I was working, so enjoy being home with my good lady. Good to hear from you and you know you are always welcome here if you are in the UK. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Hi Gordon, Have you considered swapping the levels so that the terminus is at the lower level? The outer green tracks could cross the station on impressive girder bridges A-B: This would give you much more visible length of run and easier access to the outer tracks, with no problems for clearance below the terminus pointwork. There should just be room for some operator/access at C. A bridge across a station always makes it look longer, viewed from the normal operating position at D. Just an idea, I know there are room constraints and roof angles to consider. edit: p.s. This idea may work better turned 180o so that the stairwell is on the right. regards, Martin. Edited September 7, 2012 by martin_wynne 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Hey, you don't have to go sarf of the river to build some cut and shut shops in the arches 'neath the trains plenty out of Liverpool Street, guv..... I like the plan. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 7, 2012 Just to be awkward I think you should have completed the track work and actually run trains to decide whether the layout met your needs then completed the scenic side.if you were happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Whilst in a philosophical mood..... Railway modelling is often more about the journey than the destination. Regards, Peter PS When you do finish it Gordon, can I come round and "play trains"? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted September 8, 2012 Author Share Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Thanks Martin. I did consider that option for a while, but decided against it as it would then hide the station buildings and squeeze them into a corner. I like the additional viewing run, but prefer the more open look to the terminus. Thanks for all your thoughts on gradients. They were a great help and forced me to sketch out a diagram for the calculations. As an ex draughtsman many years ago, I prefer drawings to text. I'm happy where I am right now. Some minor changes perhaps, but overall the concept works. Just to be awkward I think you should have completed the track work and actually run trains to decide whether the layout met your needs then completed the scenic side.if you were happy. That was always the aim, Mick, but sadly the earlier designs meant a lot of the scenic work was under the eaves where access was difficult. This meant scenic work having to be done first and then the completed board slid back into position. If I had laid all the track first, I'd then be working over a board and under the sloping ceiling, a bit like working in a very low tunnel and therefore very difficult. It was one of those design faults that I failed to spot on a two dimensional design on paper. It's only when you move into three dimensions do these limitations make themselves apparent. This new design stops all that and moves track back to the outside with scenics far more inboard. For once this will allow me to lay a complete circuit and get trains running, before tackling the terminus. No worries Peter, there's an open invitation to those who have stuck with this saga through thick and thin. There's nothing that would give me more pleasure than an opening party.... Edited September 8, 2012 by gordon s 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted September 8, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Gordon, I wish you well with any change-of-plans you may put in place. I'm just grateful that my layout is relatively simple in comparison! Anyway, how can you go wrong when you have first-hand advice from Professor Templot? Excellent stuff! Jeff Edited September 8, 2012 by Physicsman Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnfp Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 This thread reminds me of a situation in a Douglas Adams book, the name of which escapes me at the moment. There was a sofa stuck on a staircase and after trying numerous things to extract it eventually the whole thing was modelled in a computer and the computer eventually decided that there was no way the sofa could have got there in the first place. Bringing it back to Eastwood Town (bear with me) I could imagine someone modelling all your requirements, the room dimensions and the constraints. Then asking the computer to solve the problem - after hours of computation it comes back with the message "does not compute". Hope you find a way forward because like so many others your trials, tribulations and successes are all pure inspiration to us amateurs. John 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now