Wilf Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Hello everyone, I've been having a good read of everything in preparation for building a layout after a long break from the hobby (though shorter than most of these breaks - I'm still a student). I was wondering if I might ask some advice. If I were to have a piece of 4 track main line, paired by direction, and a nearby yard which needed connecting to the two outer slow lines, but not the fast lines, would I use diamond crossings (involving lots of maintenance due to high speed running on the central fast lines and the resultant abuse that the frogs would get, if this were a real railway) or a ladder of facing crossovers? Thanks Wilf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted July 4, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 4, 2011 Which company ? The LNWR would probably have used trailing connections and added single slips to form trailing crossovers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 ... would I use diamond crossings ... Not that I'm an expert - switched diamonds? But which company and period, as beast66606 asks. Welcome to the fold of prodigals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
essexexpress Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Hi in model form it's often better to use diamonds purely because of the length required for the equivilent functionality as a ladder. If you were to change the layout proposal slightly, and have the tracks grouped in speed not direction, eg your current proposal is ~ UP SLOW, UP FAST, DN FAST, DN SLOW, changed to UP SLOW, DN SLOW, UP FAST, DN FAST you'd be ok coming out of the yard with fixed diamonds due to the relative slower speeds encountered, all depends on where your modelling GE, MML & WCML are all grouped in the second way, ECML and i think GWML might be done in the first. I'm not sure if a modern real layout would have a route that crossed 3 lines including the up & down fasts in one hit with diamonds, as this would cause operational inconvinience, so perhaps a ladder would be more prototypical. If you want high speed running, do as the real thing, install some switch diamonds, unformtunatly I don't think these are commercially available, but they must be buildable from scratch (i've toyed with some myself but never got round to it , YET ~ has anyone else?) Mike Hello everyone, I've been having a good read of everything in preparation for building a layout after a long break from the hobby (though shorter than most of these breaks - I'm still a student). I was wondering if I might ask some advice. If I were to have a piece of 4 track main line, paired by direction, and a nearby yard which needed connecting to the two outer slow lines, but not the fast lines, would I use diamond crossings (involving lots of maintenance due to high speed running on the central fast lines and the resultant abuse that the frogs would get, if this were a real railway) or a ladder of facing crossovers? Thanks Wilf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady_Ava_Hay Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 The ladder of crossovers will cause a lot more problems than diamond crossings. i will leave the prototypical arguments to others better qualified but i think that a yard served by both up and down slow would probably have been designed to ensure that both up and down slow were adjacent and with an entry loop or siding to enable trains to wait for a road. Then the crossing point where up or down slow crosses the fast lines is off layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted July 4, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 4, 2011 in model form it's often better to use diamonds purely because of the length required for the equivilent functionality as a ladder. But not slips If you were to change the layout proposal slightly, and have the tracks grouped in speed not direction, eg your current proposal is ~ UP SLOW, UP FAST, DN FAST, DN SLOW, changed to UP SLOW, DN SLOW, UP FAST, DN FAST you'd be ok coming out of the yard with fixed diamonds due to the relative slower speeds encountered, all depends on where your modelling GE, MML & WCML are all grouped in the second way, ECML and i think GWML might be done in the first. Some of the WCML is paired by classification and some is paired by direction. I'm not sure if a modern real layout would have a route that crossed 3 lines including the up & down fasts in one hit with diamonds, as this would cause operational inconvinience, so perhaps a ladder would be more prototypical. The conflicting routes would be the same but the flexibility would be better in a ladder. If you want high speed running, do as the real thing, install some switch diamonds, unformtunatly I don't think these are commercially available, but they must be buildable from scratch (i've toyed with some myself but never got round to it , YET ~ has anyone else?) Moveable angles are dependant on the crossing angle. So if we all pause and await the OPs answer we might be able to provide relevant help Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Previous thread on switch(ed) diamonds http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/19804-switched-diamonds/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Probably how I'd do it, not being an expert... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilf Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 Thank you all for the very rapid plethora of answers - I'm not used to having a full 7 people reply while I'm eating! Which company ? Being a bit of a heretic, I'd describe the era that I model as '1960 +/- 25 years'. Yes. I'm afraid I'm going to be THAT sort of modeller. I have a similar policy about location, but as I live outside Newcastle and think LNER stuff was pretty, the plan is to set the layout towards the bottom of the North Eastern region, so that the LMS isn't far away if any of their kit looks tempting in future. in model form it's often better to use diamonds purely because of the length required for the equivilent functionality as a ladder. I'm very lucky about space - my Dad's a farmer and very agreeable to the idea of a railway attached to the wall of his shed, which is 70 feet long! If you were to change the layout proposal slightly, and have the tracks grouped in speed not direction, eg your current proposal is ~ UP SLOW, UP FAST, DN FAST, DN SLOW, changed to UP SLOW, DN SLOW, UP FAST, DN FAST you'd be ok coming out of the yard with fixed diamonds due to the relative slower speeds encountered, all depends on where your modelling GE, MML & WCML are all grouped in the second way, ECML and i think GWML might be done in the first. The trouble is that the 4-track turns into 2-track shortly afterwards, so grouping them à la LMS would lead to a diamond crossing further down the line, and blocking up both directions rather than only one when a train crosses the junction. As for a loop for trains to lie in when they wait for a road, is that not in effect what the slow lines could be for? I think I'll use peco long crossings (can't quite bring myself to try hand laying points yet, I'd rather my trains didn't derail every time they took a point) and replace them with hand built switch diamonds if I get round to it. In light of my reply, does anyone have anything they'd like to add, or that they think i'm doing wrong? I've never quite learned how the quote function works - how do you specify WHO said something that's inside the quote tags? Thanks again, Wilf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted July 4, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 4, 2011 The trouble is that the 4-track turns into 2-track shortly afterwards, so grouping them à la LMS would lead to a diamond crossing further down the line, and blocking up both directions rather than only one when a train crosses the junction. The LMS did both so there is no "a la LMS" As for a loop for trains to lie in when they wait for a road, is that not in effect what the slow lines could be for? I think I'll use peco long crossings (can't quite bring myself to try hand laying points yet, I'd rather my trains didn't derail every time they took a point) and replace them with hand built switch diamonds if I get round to it. Moveable angles or K switches (their proper names) were not that common so I wouldn't use them. As I said I'd be inclined to make the diamonds single slips to make crossovers in the connections. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilf Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 The LMS did both so there is no "a la LMS" As you said previously, I beg your pardon. Moveable angles or K switches (their proper names) were not that common so I wouldn't use them. As I said I'd be inclined to make the diamonds single slips to make crossovers in the connections. Even if such a crossover would be a facing one, not a trailing one? At last, I appear to have got the hang of this quote thing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted July 4, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 4, 2011 The GWR 4 track from Paddington to Reading was up and down slow then up and down fast there were some connections between the pairs to allow overtaking and line closures but done that way access to goods yards was easier and didn't need to interfere with the fast lines. Changing from 4 track to 2 with either type of 4 track didn't seem to cause much trouble. You are bound to get some hold-ups when you halve the line capacity. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted July 4, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 4, 2011 As you said previously, I beg your pardon. No problem, I wish people would slow down, notice that someone who understands such things is dealing with the query and wait to see how the thread progressed before diving in, I often find I have to try and help the original poster (OP) (you in this case) and also correct mistakes others make, which just doubles the length of time required to answer a straight forward question, and sometimes I (and I'm not alone) don't bother which means the OP doesn't actually get a correct answer. Even if such a crossover would be a facing one, not a trailing one? Make them the trailing ones only. At last, I appear to have got the hang of this quote thing! B) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilf Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 Make them the trailing ones only. So, assuming the yard is Down relative to this junction, but on the same side of the line as the Up lines, that would be a slip connection from yard to Up Slow, a slip connection from yard to Up Fast, and a slip connection from Down Slow to Down Fast. Is that right, or have I misunderstood? By the way, how do you know all this? Is there a book I should obviously get about track layouts? (I have Bob Essery on a shelf somewhere, but I haven't seen him for a long time...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted July 5, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 5, 2011 So, assuming the yard is Down relative to this junction, but on the same side of the line as the Up lines, that would be a slip connection from yard to Up Slow, a slip connection from yard to Up Fast, and a slip connection from Down Slow to Down Fast. Is that right, or have I misunderstood? Yes, I think you are describing what I'm saying - draw the plan and post it ... By the way, how do you know all this? Is there a book I should obviously get about track layouts? (I have Bob Essery on a shelf somewhere, but I haven't seen him for a long time...) I've studied operation and signalling of railways for over 30 years now, mainly LNWR/LMS/LMR/RT/NR but some principles are general, some aren't of course... Be wary of BE information, he was a fireman for 2 years or so around Saltley, that doesn't make him an expert on the rest of the network or it's workings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 5, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 5, 2011 Yes, I think you are describing what I'm saying - draw the plan and post it ... Be wary of BE information, he was a fireman for 2 years or so around Saltley, that doesn't make him an expert on the rest of the network or it's workings I'm 100% with Beast on this - you are getting some sound advice from him (including, as he and I were only discussing at Members' Day on Saturday, what some might regard as the heresy of his final comment above). Oh and by the way, as a sort of indication of provenance, I have something in excess of 40 years of professional involvement with railway operation, signalling (from many angles), and layout planning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilf Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 Yard junction.xtc By the way, how do you know all this? Just realised that probably sounded fairly interrogative - sorry. I was just curious, as if you weren't professionals, I wanted to read the books you had. Yes, I think you are describing what I'm saying - draw the plan and post it ... I use XTrkCad, so have attached a diagram. Is there something better that I ought to be using? I have something in excess of 40 years of professional involvement with railway operation, signalling (from many angles), and layout planning. That's one of the other things I'm particularly interested in. I'm going to try and signal my layout as fully as possible. I got Kitchenside and Williams a year or two ago, seems a very good book - is it? Thanks again for all your help, everyone! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Seventy foot run? My chosen station, Hatfield in Herts, manages three point ladders across the four track in about half a mile, one trailing at the South end, superimposed facing and trailing at the North end. You could fit all that in O gauge with the space you have available... (Three signal boxes: and also a Permanent Way Inspector's office in the East yard strategically positioned a very short walk from the superimposed ladders; that cannot be a coincidence.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilf Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 ...that cannot be a coincidence.) I'm afraid that's exactly what it is. Being a bit of a novice, and having a little bit of stock already (including the live steam mallard, which I found on Ebay, or to call it by its more appropriate name, spreebay) combined with being a total liability if let anywhere near anything fiddly like rolling stock kits, O gauge doesn't have much of an RTR market (and it costs a bomb compared to smaller things). I'm not basing my layout on any kind of real location either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Yard junction.xtc (3.99K) Could not open file without downloading something new onto my computer to enable. Can you upload your artwork using JPEG? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilf Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 Here it is. Gah, it missed off the labels. Horizontal tracks are Up Slow, Up Fast, Down Slow, Down Fast from top to bottom, and the diagonal track obviously leads to the yard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 5, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 5, 2011 re signalling That's one of the other things I'm particularly interested in. I'm going to try and signal my layout as fully as possible. I got Kitchenside and Williams a year or two ago, seems a very good book - is it? If it is 'Two Centuries of Railway Signalling' it's not too bad although the much earlier, smaller format, book 'British Railway Signalling' by the same authors - with help from a number of professionals - is, I think, considerably better for getting over some of the basic principles (always a good place to start). As far as your ladder of points is concerned one end of it - furthest from the yard - involves facing points which I think would have been unlikely in such a situation (but I'm no expert on the area you have in mind) and I would expect to see something much more akin to the layout posted by Coachman as it avoids facing points. Don't forget that in order to shunt a small yard the train has to reverse in otherwise the engine would be blocked in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 As soon as I saw that facing point I though uh uh.There is potential for conflict as it could unintentionally lead a train straight across the path of three other mainline trains. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilf Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 The yard is fairly big (the trains go into run-roundable loops and the shunting's done by a yard pilot, not the train engine) - the kind of size where I imagine Coachman's plan would slow everything down too much to be used. Did they do this anyway because of the risks of facing points on running lines? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 5, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 5, 2011 The yard is fairly big (the trains go into run-roundable loops and the shunting's done by a yard pilot, not the train engine) - the kind of size where I imagine Coachman's plan would slow everything down too much to be used. Did they do this anyway because of the risks of facing points on running lines? There was a strong aversion to facing points in Britain both because of the risk they posed (which placed a legal restriction on their use to [only] 'where absolutely necessary') and because of the complexity they added to signalling etc because of the additional safety features they required. And, as I've already mentioned, their operational unsuitability in many instances. Your latest comment suggest to me that if you are considering what amounts to quite a large yard it might be sensible to introduce a couple of lines paired by use (i.e.Up & Down Goods Lines) running to it from the place where your double track turns into quadruple. Such an extensive idea would not, I think albeit from relatively limited knowledge of the area, be entirely out of place for the steam era in a busy area. However if you are going to stick with your present plan I would consider it far more sensible to separate the Up & Down line connections to the the yard despite the number of diamond crossings which would result (if you can afford 'em of course). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.