RMweb Gold McC Posted January 13, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 13, 2012 Thanks Kris - you've been a godsend! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 13, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 13, 2012 You might need to look at the gradient on that link you've just popped in. I stretched the link much as possible to reduce the gradient. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 13, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 13, 2012 Am hoping I can keep that straight run at the same height as the terminus, starting to drop in top left, then drop the full distance down the left extreme edge, then drop from the fiddle under the boards and left to the lower level.... does that make sense? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 13, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 13, 2012 So, basically the terminus and fiddle are on the upper level. The cement is on the same level as the terminus in bottom left, but the through station and reverse loop are on the lower level. the hidden return to the fiddle rises under the board (will need to ensure enough clearance on the fiddle end! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 13, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 13, 2012 I marked up the attic with the board measurements and heights today, looks good, and am just waiting back on details from a local timber yard on pre-cutting the boards... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 13, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 13, 2012 On the gradients, I'm aiming for at least 12-15' to make the drop / climb and trying to keep them as straight as possible... I'm hoping to run as near prototypical rakes as I can, so loco, 7-8 coaches and a DVT, fro example, so need to ensure they can make it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 13, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 13, 2012 I think that you are underestimating the length needed for your gradients have you read through this thread? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/8115-gradients/ If not it might give you some pause for thought. As it is the plan you have is workable but don't expect most of it to be on one level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 13, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 13, 2012 Hmmm, thanks Kris, will have a proper read and digest! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 14, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 14, 2012 Ok, I got a Woodland Scenics 'gradient in a box' kit at 4% (1:25) which I lashed some track onto today and tested with some of the fleet. It was certainly instructional! The kit rose 4" over 8' and, basically, almost half the stock couldnt climb it with 6 coaches, let alone more! The 'big guys' (Irish 201's, Deltics, etc) could manage it ok (but under strain) whereas none of the steamers, shunters or older stock could get more than three coaches up the hill! (That said, a Bachmann dcc sound class 20 flew up without a bother with 8 coaches! ) Woodland do a 2% / 1:50 kit, which I reckon should work fine for me, meaning I need to run 16 feet of incline/decline to clear the 4" to pass under the terminus board. I need to figure now where the gradient starts, probably flatten them out on the tougher curves, and then resume on the straights.... I was a bit shocked tbh, and how much difficulty the stock had with relatively low wight on the 1:25 - one wonders why woodland even sell it!? I guess I can recycle it as a road bed for trucks :) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 15, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 15, 2012 I was a bit shocked tbh, and how much difficulty the stock had with relatively low wight on the 1:25 - one wonders why woodland even sell it!? I guess I can recycle it as a road bed for trucks :) This is the sort of incline I would expect to see on some narrow gauge layouts - The larger locos generally handle this better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 15, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2012 Yes, 1:50 is more sensible, need a quick redesign to accomodate, means that most of hte dogbone will be rising or dropping at some point Should make it more interesting to operate and watch though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 15, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2012 Ok, here's the latest incarnation! As a result of the investigations, I realised that for stress-free running, 1:50 was the gradient of choice, so I adjusted some of the lines to mean I had at least 16 feet of gradient 'room' on both sides. This is the result. Light grey is +4" from zero. Dark Grey is at 0" 'Brown' grey is gradient closing the 4" gap in about 16 feet of incline (which level out to flat or 1% on the curves) The black lines are embankments / retaining walls and all the tight curves (designed as the equivalent of Hornby / settrack 3rd and 4th radius) are hidden/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 16, 2012 I think you've got it cracked. One slight modification suggestion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Only snag I can see is you're going to need to access the ends of the terminal roads to uncouple, which will mean ducking under/lifting the other station and will probably become an irritant before long.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 16, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2012 My plan for uncoupling is to complete fitting all my stock with kadees, and use electro and delay magnets on most of the sidings and terminal roads. The dead end raods I plan to loco release with a pilot or use multiple units and DVT equiped trains - does that get around the issue? Good suggestion Kris - thanks! Will integrate that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Incidentally, going back to the plan at the start of the thread, I'd make the terminus approach/triangle single track, simplifying the pointwork and meaning the whole section is one polarity reversal... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Sidelines Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Hello, you have had lots of good advice and look to have made all your decisions. Just one thought. Do you intend to close couple your coaching stock? If so you will need to ensure that the whole of the mainline has a minimum radius better than say 30 inches - equivalent to Peco Medium Radius. Yes - layout space is great - but large gaps between coaches can be very off putting. It took me a good few months to decide on my' ultimate' loft layout plan - well the plan I started with. There were always going to be changes. I think I started building around 2007 and have only just finished ballasting. There are some interesting woodwork pictures on Flickr and also here on my Blog http://www.rmweb.co....960s-00-scale/. Good luck Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 16, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2012 Wow that woodwork looks stunning Ray! The smallest radius on the layout is the equivalent of a Hornby '3rd radius' which is only about 19-20" - do you think I'll have trouble? Am planning on using kadees between all the stock (and locos) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 16, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2012 I also use magnetic coach connectors between coaching stock, which does help close the gap a good bit... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Sidelines Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Hello McC Thanks for the compliment. I suspect it is like eBay, photographs can make things look much better. Hornby 3rd radius - sorry don't know. 20" sounds to me to be too tight. I have no experience of Kadees. I have a variety of 'new' coaching stock, including Bachmann Mk1s and Hornby Staniers and Hawksworths, all formed into fixed rakes using Hornby R8220 couplings. This way there is not need for extra corridor connectors, I would guess that 20 inch radius would be too tight. Older coaches with 'Airfix' type couplings have been upgraded with Bachmann mini (Long) couplings. It is a straight forward and easily reversible operation. Prise off the little keeper plate and take out the old Airfix / Dapol / Hornby push in coupling. Cut the wings off a Bachmann mini (Long) coupling. Using only fingers, ream the screw hole in the mini coupling with a suitably sized twist drill bit until it is big enough to pop over the Airfix coupling post. Push the little keeper plate back into place - job done. Unfortunately I think you would have buffer locking at radii down to 20 inches. Just another thought about your plan. You have probably already been there so to speak, but make sure that your hidden siding, holding loops and main station platforms are all around the same length so that they will all accommodate your chosen maximum train length. Regards Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 17, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 17, 2012 Hi Ray, Many thanks indeed. I close coupled a pair of Irish coachs and - you are right - they will make it around a '4th radius' (24") but only barely and I fear would likely uncouple on a regular basis. Back to the drawing board slightly, to ease the curves to a minimum 36"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Sidelines Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Sorry if I have delayed the project. I aim for a minimum radius of 36 inches for all running lines. I also use a fair number of Peco Medium radius points without problem. Therefore I guess it might be possible to reduce the curves on plain track to below 36 inches, as I believe that the actual minimum radius of a '36 inch Peco Medium Point' is somewhat less than 36 inches, perhaps as small as 30 inches. The only item of Peco Medium Radius track that has caused a problem was the single slip and this is definitely out of bounds for any close coupled coaches or tender draw bars. Regards Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 17, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 17, 2012 Not at all Ray, better to measure thrice and cut once I've mainly large peco's on the mainlines, with large curved and medium in the yards and around the terminus to maximise road length... Am hoping that will sork ok, I reckon I can swing 36" on most of the mainline, with a few spots down to about 24" at worse.... Will see how she goes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 18, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'm hoping to get the concrete large peco code 75 points when they get released later this year, in the mean time will be using wooden sleepers on the large and crossings... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Sidelines Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 If you are tempted to use up your existing stock of track remember that very old Peco points were made to accommodate Triang wheels and that the curved points in particular are not suited to the latest Bachmann products. I forget when Peco standards changed but it probably coincided with the introduction of their Code 75 products. Regards Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.