Jon Gwinnett Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Thought I ought to give the shunty plank its own thread since there was a danger it was hogging the workbench pages. To recap, I've been struck with pneumonia and needed something simple, not energy sapping and fun to keep me amused whilst I recuperated. Although I had always been (naively) dismissive of shunting puzzles, operating Haston at Glasgow last year had opened my eyes to how much operational interest the "Micro" aspects of railroading could give. I thought timesavers were, on the whole, too contrived for my purposes - although I know they can be developed to look convincing. Originally, the plan was just to have a flat bare board with the track, and nothing more. However, operating the bare layout for an hour or two, and the arrival of Menasha in CM gave me the inspiration to do something scenic. I thought the layout (is that too grand a term for a plank) could act as a test bed for some ideas- such as using Exactoscale brass joint bars, about which more later), and embedded track, vital if I was ever to model a So-Cal street running layout, and so on. The power of the internet and next day delivery meant I could acquire structure kits easily. And the name? Seaford is the fictional town in which “Kickin It”, the origin of the Bobby Wasabi dojo, is set. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share Posted December 4, 2011 And here is a photographic summary of progress so far: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share Posted December 4, 2011 As related in the Workbench thread, I had repeated intermittent electrical problems. Eventually I decided that the Exactoscale joint bars, whilst visually superb, could not be relied upon to conduct power. So I bit the bullet and lifted the points, removed the joint bars (easier said than done, as I'd soldered them!) and added normal Peco rail joiners, with feed wires soldered to each pair of joiners. (Not as good as soldering direct to the track, but my earlier efforts had proved that was not a skill I possess!) Unfortunately, I only made the decision after the first two coats of plaster for the inlaid yard. However, some repair work, and a coat of paint leads us to the state of play today: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcanman Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Hi Jon, Alway good to see the construction of a new small layout. Looks great, keep posting please. regards, Mal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Klyzlr Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Thought I ought to give the shunty plank its own thread since there was a danger it was hogging the workbench pages. To recap, I've been struck with pneumonia and needed something simple, not energy sapping and fun to keep me amused whilst I recuperated. Although I had always been (naively) dismissive of shunting puzzles, operating Haston at Glasgow last year had opened my eyes to how much operational interest the "Micro" aspects of railroading could give. I thought timesavers were, on the whole, too contrived for my purposes - although I know they can be developed to look convincing. Originally, the plan was just to have a flat bare board with the track, and nothing more. However, operating the bare layout for an hour or two, and the arrival of Menasha in CM gave me the inspiration to do something scenic. I thought the layout (is that too grand a term for a plank) could act as a test bed for some ideas- such as using Exactoscale brass joint bars, about which more later), and embedded track, vital if I was ever to model a So-Cal street running layout, and so on. The power of the internet and next day delivery meant I could acquire structure kits easily. And the name? Seaford is the fictional town in which “Kickin It”, the origin of the Bobby Wasabi dojo, is set. Dear Jon, 1 - It's Looking Good from here! 2 - Glad to hear that you've "seen thru the fog", and recognized that even a Micro layout is capable of entirely-proto ops. (Hint: you may have seen the term "proto-nook" before?) 3 - Let's clear something up right here and now. "Layout" is _not_ "too grandiose" a term for a "shunty plank"! - Has track? : Check! - Can be operated? (a train can be made to move under it's own power?) : Check! (This criteria seperates "layouts" or "modules" from "dioramas/displays", and is loosely paraphrased from the relevant NMRA Contest criteria) Then it's a layout! If anything, IMHO the dismissive term "Shunty Plank" ("... it can't be anything serious or a real model, it's just track-on-a-plank...") is far more degrading and misleading a description., esp for a layout "...having clear purpose and excellent operating capabilityl" (Thanks to Carl A for the quote http://www.carendt.us/about/index.html ) That you have - weathered the track - started super-detailing the track - started scenery - and started adding structures (and I'll wager wind up putting a lot more effort into it by the time it's done than simply "tacking some track down on a board"), already weighs heavily on the side of this being much more than just a "plank with track on",... You know it's true, and you know I won't let you get away with suggesting otherwise... Looking forward to seeing how this _layout_ evolves... Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share Posted December 4, 2011 Thanks for the encouragement chaps. I would show you an operating session video, but I'm struggling to upload it to YouTube. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 Only took a day. Not sure it was worth the effort, and it certainly isn't up to Mal's standard! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HkkO005prE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcanman Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Looks good to me and operates very smoothly too! cheers, Mal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 6, 2011 Author Share Posted December 6, 2011 Thanks Mal. The video facility on my still camera seems to stutter a bit, probably when its trying to focus, but that aside it worked quite well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Very smoorh. You need Mrs. Mal to operate the camera....... Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 There doesn't look to be a whole lot wrong with that, Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcanman Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Not a chance! She's still annoyed with me for filming the last video myself! Mal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 6, 2011 Author Share Posted December 6, 2011 Thanks guys. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
signalmaintainer Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Looks good, Jon! Except I thought you were a little older (referring to the first photo with the young lad). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 Looks good, Jon! Except I thought you were a little older (referring to the first photo with the young lad). I wish I was as young and carefree! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 I've tried to cure the annoying light switching on an off on the MP15DC. Turns out the QSI chip won't allow me the option to have permanently "on" lights both ends - bit annoying. However, the bonnet end has permanently on lights that just dim when travelling in reverse, so I'll turn it round before the next video! Tried out my MP15AC today - all sorts of problems - cab headlights not working (broken wire, inaccessible) , but running very poor, stalling and stopping at any slight excuse. The Atlas one runs much better. I'll try the non-sound one next time I get a chance- see if that's any better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 .... the QSI chip won't allow me the option to have permanently "on" lights both ends - bit annoying. However, the bonnet end has permanently on lights that just dim when travelling in reverse.... Having bought some NCE decoders recently (and broken/fried one today ) I note that has the "Switcher" option of "all lights on but dim in reverse"... now I have to see if Digitrax has something similar, since my Switchers will have Digitrax decoders. I keep reading the manual, but some of it is still gobbledegook.... Nice video, though - it gives the idea. Apologies too, to the good Prof; I'm one guilty of using the term "Shunty-Plank", although as with my use of the word "Kettle" I don't mean it in a derogatory sense.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 13, 2011 Author Share Posted December 13, 2011 The cheapo "TrainSave" decoders that Gaugemaster have been wholesaling also allow all lights on (I think they might allow dimming but I haven't tried.) I would really like switchable front and rear but that's a bit beyond my capabilities - mapping functions etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I would really like switchable front and rear but that's a bit beyond my capabilities - mapping functions etc. I take it you mean so the lights can be switched on or off regardless of loco direction, as opposed to 'directional'? That's another option I'd like to try, too. Does the manual for the decoder you use have anything about settings for that? I must admit, Function Mapping sounds simple enough, but I've not tried it yet either.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 13, 2011 Author Share Posted December 13, 2011 Nothing in the manual - only limited info on lights at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 I'm afraid progress on Seaford has stalled, Due to one, the sun coming out 6 weeks or so back so I went out photting the real thing. Then two, my new job started so I've been busy. (that's my excuse anyway) however, the arrival of a small fleet of CSX locos has breathed new life into the project. So I'm hoping to make some progress later this week. We'll see! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
long island jack Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Jon You better have it finished for next June,Nick's looking for layouts at TVNAM.(more free publicity!!!) Ray official publicity officer for TVNAM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 Hmm, it might have to have a rebuild before then! Not that I dislike it as now, but I've decided the two track format isn't quite right for a lumber yard - not enough access either side to empty centrebeams safely. So I'm thinking of a rebuild with the track in something more akin to the trident shape on a USB plug. Lumber on one side of the main, and a cement plant on the other. Roughly the same length, but width increased to 18" to match RS/UK freemo spec. I'm thinking of it so much I've acquired a small cement plant thanks to an ebayer in Holland. If anyone has Walthers cars in Southwest cement livery they no longer want, I'm sure I could be tempted... What do you think? Oh, and I bought some of the Hobbycraft thin foam to experiment with for the road crossing - seems superb and so much easier than the card/wood/plaster etc that I was contemplating before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Klyzlr Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Dear Jon, Seperating both "spurs" and having them exit out either side of the "Main" is entirely do-able, but it throws some "headspace wrinkles" into the mix. NB that the following assumes you are trying to use normal turnouts, 3-ways are not being considered... Check "Chicago Fork" and Jack's "Florida switcher" (apologies, can't remember the name of it right this moment), both are configured as "Mainline up the centre, 2-car end-of-pass to one side, 3-car industry spur to the other. Now, you technically "loose" an industry, but you _gain_ the ability to operate it in either "full spec Inglenook" style, or "proto-nook" style (looks like a 'nook, conforms to the spec, but supports non-nook-constrained switching procedures). Assuming we _do_ want to keep it "single main and 2 spurs", the lengths become the next issue. Follow along, because this is going to get challenging without a whiteboard... :-) - Assume the centre track is the "long" spur of the nook, and is the "Main" - Assume we are talking a 3:2:2 nook - Assume we are talking 40' cars and a SW switcher (IE all "carlengths" are equal) HO 40' = 6"/150mm PECO Code 80 US geometry #5 = 150mm overall = 300mm to clearance Given the above, and starting from the tip of the headshunt - Loco+2cars headshunt = 450mm + 1x PECO Code 80 #5 @ 150mm = 600mm running-total + 1x PECO Code 80 #5 _to-clear_ @ 300mm = 900mm running-total + 3-car "mainline" @ 450mm = 1350mm overall This is the "critical path", both "other spurs" protruding out either side of the "Main", if we're respecting the "2-car short spur" nook specs, can fit within the linear length available... ...and that's the problem, there is actually _more_ than enough linear length for both "only 2-car" spurs, _if_ we run them off the turnouts and head to the edge of the 1350mm board. SO, how do we "maintain the nook spec" for these "should-be shorter spurs"? Sure, we could literally only lay enough track to hold 2 cars on each spur, but we leave ourselves open to alegations of "contrived" look, because there's _obviously_ length-enough for them to be longer, so why aren't they? What we _can_ do is lay the spurs to "full allowable length" (First spur = 600mm to clear, or around 4 car-lengths, Second spur = 450mm to clear, or around 3 car-lengths) and then "politically truncate" their capacities. How? try: - adding a working chain-link gate accross the spur at the 2 car-length mark, as measured from the end-of-track. (Rule states that all cars for the industry must be spotted within the gated confines). - add a grade-crossing accross the head-end of the "longer" spur and the turnout to the "shorter" spur. (Rule states that all cars for industry must be spotted clear of the grade-crossing) - place a "dummy" car at the end-of-track end of the spur, which seems as if it _never_ actually gets fully loaded or emptied, and thus must stay in position. Point being, as soon as we - re-arrange the 'nook "trident style" - _and_ insist that the middle track be the 'nook's "Long spur" (and, at least in at-a-glance appearance, beg to be assigned as the "mainline"), it is _possible_ to create a 'nook, but it forces the overall linear length to be longer than one might think, and opens up the door to "non-'nook-like" spur-length cheat possibilities (which can be turned from weaknesses to strengths if we use the "excess length" to "de-contrive" the trad 'nook configuration...) Clear as mud? Can try to put some diagrams together this evening if it would help... Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr PS Iain Rice notes in his "Small, Smart, and Practical trackplan" book that "...a spur which can hold 2.5 cars is no more helpful than one which can hold 2 cars, and significantly less helpful than one which can hold 3 cars at a pinch..." Now, if we take the 'nook rules strictly as perscribed, he's right. But equally, we're limited to fixed-length cars. A single "excess-length" car can lead to a mechanically-impossible switching lockup. One of the "joys" of US railroading is that we can legitimately see 72, 60, 50, 40, and 30-something foot-long cars coupled to each other in a single train. Simplifying things a little, if we work on "40' / 6" / 150mm is the 'standard' car length" premise, but allow maybe _one_ excess-length 50'er into the mix, having those "2-car spurs" each be actually "2.4 cars long" (still using "political limits" such as chain-link gates and grade-crossings as "the limiting factors'), in apparent contradiction of Iain R's advice can allow us to "mix things up abit" and again break another "it's a contrived situation" appearance, while still following "the rules of the game"... FWIW, the "2-car" mainline and "end-of-a-passing-loop" spurs on Chicago Fork are actually something like 95 scale feet from "end-of-track" to "clearance" point. This allows: - a 4-car "nominally 40'/carlength" train, - with 1x "excess length" 50'er in the mix, - which never "locks up" due to exceeding spur capacities, - and yet still forfills the "cannonical 'nook" specs when used with "all-spec" 40' cars. (can't sneak 3x 40'ers on those "slightly-too-long" 2-car spurs, but you can fit a 40 and a 50... just... ;-) ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted May 8, 2014 Author Share Posted May 8, 2014 In my efforts to plan Seaford's replacement(s) I come back to the Prof's eloquent explanation above. I'm now torn between doing a smaller US micro and the main Dutch layout. In both cases, the truths above come home to roost. Even using set track, my Alco S4 and two 50ish foot cars takes up a lot more room than you might expect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.