RMweb Premium Jason T Posted March 2, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2013 I've not hard-wired a split chassis loco yet but others are easy enough to do and can sometimes offer ore flexibility on chips and positioning than using the socket. I have hard wired my almost 30 year old Dapol Pug and hidden the chip in the cab, and it as pretty straight-forward; J94 was not a easy due to having to file off a lump of th weight bu the wiring was a doddle. I am not sure without checking, but I think I junked the socket on my Ivatt 2MT Mickey Mouse Mogul when I removed the bar for the tender coupling and replaced it with a hook and loop to lose up the gap a bit. Wires still pass through from loco to tender but I just pulled the excess through a bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 8 hours of walking gives you plenty of time to think through lots of ideas for layouts, and I keep coming back to Jason's suggestion of a chemical works and exchange sidings. As he said, plenty of opportunity for shunting, and plenty of different wagon types are possible, particularly if you go for bulk handling of products. I'm thinking of a double track mainline across the back, slightly elevated, with a siding off to the left, allowing access to the exchange sidings to the right. In front of this is are the plant sidings, headshunt to the left, with a pair of sidings in front of some solid (plastics?) plant, to the right another pair of sidings, this time for some sort of liquid (probably acid, so we can have hazardous materials workings) with bulk loading again, and in the centre, a power plant, with attendant coal unloading siding, and a charging point for the works fireless engine, possibly an ash plant too. If space allows, the exchange sidings are double ended, with access to an iron works via the far end, and a continuation of the chemical plant's shunting line to represent access to further plants (with associated movements...) Right at the front of the layout are some low relief buildings of each part of the plant, which restrict the view into the layout, so you can't see all of it from just one place. Now, I'll see if I can conjure up some artistic talent and produce a picture of this... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythocentric Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Bill, not sure if you're joking or not, but I've just chipped a Crab of mine, which is a Bachmann DCC ready in BR black Early Emblem, Model number 32-176. The socket is in the middle of the boiler, and I found I could get a Lenz Standard chip in the firebox above the motor. Ooop! Thanks for the heads up Alistair! To be honest they've been packed away for the last four years following my move to the coast and with the boxes long gone I assumed that, with them being older models, they'd need hardwiring! I dug them out this morning and it turns out I've got two 32-176, one 32-177 and one 32-179, both rivetted and non-rivetted tender varieties. I've dropped them off at my local model shop for maintainance/chipping this morning. I won't tell you what he called me when I explained my error! A good example of putting my brain into gear before engaging my mouth I think. Apologies to all for the confusion! Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Jason T Posted March 2, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2013 I have been in the Train Shop a few times Bill, and Richard is a star. Next time you are in, see if he remembers the lad from Oxford who comes from near Arnside and hopefully (probably) he will. I did mention to him that I was modelling Bacup and he was very helpful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythocentric Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I have been in the Train Shop a few times Bill, and Richard is a star. Next time you are in, see if he remembers the lad from Oxford who comes from near Arnside and hopefully (probably) he will. I did mention to him that I was modelling Bacup and he was very helpful. Hi Jason I've already mentioned you more than once to Richard and he does indeed remember you. I don't know if he's had a look at Bacup on here yet but I did loan him the LY Magazine with the article and he was highly impressed. As you say he is a star and has helped no end in getting me back into modelling. A fine gentleman indeed and one I share many interests with including some rather obscure 60's rock bands! Regards Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 I've had a go at drawing up the plan I described yesterday in XtrackCad, and ended up with this: Hmmm.... Not quite what I had in my mind's eye when I was thinking about it yesterday. There is an awful lot of track on there, it didn't seem that much when I was thinking about it, and the loop lengths are not as long as I thought they would be. Why is this the case? Well, I'm moving up from N-Gauge, so I've probably not managed to scale up my thinking appropriately, and without an actual plan forcing things like track spacings, it's easy to bend space to make what you want, fit. There is some scope for moving the pointwork a bit, but not all that much, and the length gains aren't that much. Of course, the loops only need to be long enough for the train, not the train and engine - which makes things a little easier. Working on a 4ft train length (which seems to be loco and 10-11 wagons), that makes the loops out to be just over 3ft long, so I'm a little short at the moment. Not sure what to do now, should I keep playing in the hope of finding a suitable solution, or go right back to the drawing board? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted March 3, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 3, 2013 If you need drawings of fireless locos I have a drawing of a 12"x18" Peckett in the archive...... Andy G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 Operationally, the way I saw it working went something like this: Start with a train of wagons in the middle exchange siding, ready to depart, and a number of wagons dotted about the sidings. Freight train approaches on the mainline, into the siding, then backs into the bottom exchange siding. Loco detaches, runs back into the arrival siding, then using the top exchange siding, runs round the ready train, backs it into the arrival siding then heads off onto the mainline and disappears. Works shunter then starts shuffling wagons around, moving the newly arrived wagons to the various sidings, and collecting the existing ones to assemble a new outgoing train. Obviously, with the sidings pointing in different directions, this requires quite a bit of careful thought and running round to accomplish. Eventually, the new train is assembled, and we can start again. Adding in an ironworks off-scene to the right means that further trains have to pass through the exchange sidings, except that these have the train loco swapping ends, before departing off-scene (assuming enough room to put in a fiddle yard off the right side). Of course, with only 3 sidings, these workings have to be carefully interlaced to allow them to happen. To add further interest, the ore workings could come from the left on the mainline, and need to be backed across the crossover (that's missing from the plan) in order to gain access to the exchange sidings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 If you need drawings of fireless locos I have a drawing of a 12"x18" Peckett in the archive...... Andy G Morning Andy, Thanks for the offer, but I'm a little bit away from needing the drawings yet... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted March 3, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 3, 2013 I've had a go at drawing up the plan I described yesterday in XtrackCad, and ended up with this: ardeer mk1.jpg Hmmm.... Not quite what I had in my mind's eye when I was thinking about it yesterday. There is an awful lot of track on there, it didn't seem that much when I was thinking about it, and the loop lengths are not as long as I thought they would be. Why is this the case? Well, I'm moving up from N-Gauge, so I've probably not managed to scale up my thinking appropriately, and without an actual plan forcing things like track spacings, it's easy to bend space to make what you want, fit. There is some scope for moving the pointwork a bit, but not all that much, and the length gains aren't that much. Of course, the loops only need to be long enough for the train, not the train and engine - which makes things a little easier. Working on a 4ft train length (which seems to be loco and 10-11 wagons), that makes the loops out to be just over 3ft long, so I'm a little short at the moment. Not sure what to do now, should I keep playing in the hope of finding a suitable solution, or go right back to the drawing board? Being an intellectually-lazy sort of gink, I'm not much cop with software etc, but have always found that having a few pairs of points and a tape measure quickly brings reality to a plan. Just laying points out on the dining table, measuring, noting and picking them up before moving on to the next formation can either reassure or force a re-think. Maximise your run-rounds if you can - they really do affect the satisfaction of operating. And I say that as one who has at times been paid to design, or manage the design of, 12":1 ft layouts! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
emt_911 Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Michael There appears to be a lot of track with not a lot of space for scenery. As Oldddudders has said, if you print out / draw the points, they can be laid out on a suitable table or floor to check lengths clearances and whether it will provide the operation that you want it to. The simple action of moving a loco around the opieces of paper can end up with a significant change in plan if you find one part of it doesn't work as you had envisaged. This is something I wish I'd done prior to laying any track. Lesson learnt. What are you planning for the up / top line as it isn't connected to anything. Will it be a programming track? Just a few of my thoughts. Duncan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 Being an intellectually-lazy sort of gink, I'm not much cop with software etc, but have always found that having a few pairs of points and a tape measure quickly brings reality to a plan. Just laying points out on the dining table, measuring, noting and picking them up before moving on to the next formation can either reassure or force a re-think. Maximise your run-rounds if you can - they really do affect the satisfaction of operating. And I say that as one who has at times been paid to design, or manage the design of, 12":1 ft layouts! All I can think of is the size of that dining table! All good advice Ian, I think I need to go back and have a play with some track to get a better feeling for the space needed for things in 00. This change in size is a bit harder than it first appears. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Jason T Posted March 4, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 4, 2013 I'd say you need to lose a few of the sidings and possibly cut it down to one run-round loop; you don't really need more than one. It's looking far too cramped at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 There appears to be a lot of track with not a lot of space for scenery. Absolutely agree, I just put all my idea down on paper without worrying too much about that - and having done so, it clearly needs a bit of rationalisation. As Oldddudders has said, if you print out / draw the points, they can be laid out on a suitable table or floor to check lengths clearances and whether it will provide the operation that you want it to. The simple action of moving a loco around the opieces of paper can end up with a significant change in plan if you find one part of it doesn't work as you had envisaged. This is something I wish I'd done prior to laying any track. Lesson learnt. I hadn't thought of doing that, just imagined the operations in progress. Again, this sort of thinking lets the difficult bits be, erm, carefully ignored, whereas I can see playing on a printed plan wouldn't. I'll have to give it a go at some point. What are you planning for the up / top line as it isn't connected to anything. Will it be a programming track? The up line should be connected by a trailing crossover to the downline, so trains arrive on, and depart, the scene on the appropriate line. Hadn't considered a programming track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 I'd say you need to lose a few of the sidings and possibly cut it down to one run-round loop; you don't really need more than one. It's looking far too cramped at the moment. I'm more tempted to lose the mainline at the back, and use the space gained to spread the rest of the track out. I quite like the number of sidings at the front, and the operational potential they give, whereas the mainline is just there for show, and to get trains on and off scene, which could be done in less space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Remember Michael, LESS IS MORE Bodgit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 5, 2013 Author Share Posted March 5, 2013 Well, I had a quick play with some track this evening, and I've now got a better idea of how much room things take up. Suffice it to say, plenty of rationalisation is in order. Looking at the left end of the plan, the first three tracks are squeezed into not much more than 9". Having laid it out, 15" seems much more sensible for that set of track. I'll have another go at the track-plan, and try to include tonight's experiments, sometime in the next couple of days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 5, 2013 Author Share Posted March 5, 2013 And in the cold light of day: This is laid out on a 8' by 2' flooring board - so approximately two-thirds the length I'm looking at for the full layout. Now I think there is scope for shuffling some of the sidings around (the ones by the kitchen roll plant could probably do with moving away from the camera a bit), and the headshunt should be more parallel to the side of the board. However, it looks like there should be room for a pair of exchange sidings top left, perhaps being on the side of a single track branch line that runs along the back of the layout, with a factory halt bottom left (platform and waiting shelter)... Thank you to all for the suggestion to play with real track - it does make quite a difference... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
emt_911 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 This is laid out on a 8' by 2' flooring board - so approximately two-thirds the length I'm looking at for the full layout. Now I think there is scope for shuffling some of the sidings around (the ones by the kitchen roll plant could probably do with moving away from the camera a bit), and the headshunt should be more parallel to the side of the board. However, it looks like there should be room for a pair of exchange sidings top left, perhaps being on the side of a single track branch line that runs along the back of the layout, with a factory halt bottom left (platform and waiting shelter)... Thank you to all for the suggestion to play with real track - it does make quite a difference... I wouldn't worry about the track being parallel, it looks better and not so clinical if it isn't. A lesson I've learnt on Oxred Park and won't do again. Duncan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 6, 2013 Author Share Posted March 6, 2013 I agree in general, but if I do take the shunting line at an angle, I end up with a lot more space for industrial plant at one end than the other. And I don't want to curve it, as that just looks odd compared to the pictures Jason posted of the ICI Ardeer site. I can see more playing / thinking is required. This is proving to be a bit trickier than I thought it would be... Did get a comment last night that doing the plan in N would look really good - not least due to the relatively massive size that the buildings could be. I don't think that's going to happen though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted March 6, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 6, 2013 Michael, if you have ANY kind of prototype that takes your fancy - such as whatever Jason sent you - stick close to it. My previous layouts have always been "freelance". I now understand the reasoning behind what I've been reading - and previously ignoring - for 15 years... "the prototype generally knows best". I'm sure you already know this - not trying to lecture! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 6, 2013 Author Share Posted March 6, 2013 Hi Jeff, Thanks for the reminder - it's easy to get carried away with the fun of planning, and lose sight of the original inspiration. Looking at the full site in the mapping sites, it is very rectangular, with roads running parallel, so I'm now wondering if it matters that much that the track is parallel to the front of the baseboard. Doing so would echo the regularity of the site plan, without having to show that plan laid out. Of course, the lines at the back can be nice and curvy to shift the feeling away from the industrial regularity of the front, to the sweeping nature of the countryside outside the plants boundary. Hmmmm... Dammit, more things to think about! Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 6, 2013 Author Share Posted March 6, 2013 I've given up on trying to get peco point plans printed out (nothing to do with the plans, more to do with IT and user stupidity...), and have just been laying track out to get a feel for things. With the aid of some odd looking track, I've played around and come up with the first 8ft of layout: As with the last picture, there are two sidings serving the kitchen roll plant, the nearer one will be a loading dock, the further one allowing for loading of hoppers, and unloading of tankers. Moving to the left, the headshunt splits to access the chemical plant and the exchange sidings. and at the back of the layout is the main line (now just a single track branch), with a factory halt to allow the workers to get on and off. The second picture shows the middle of the board, we can see the West Wing of the power plant, being served by two sidings, the longer one allowing coal hoppers to be unloaded, the shorter one giving access to a loading dock, and allowing ash to be emptied into open wagons for disposal. The access line for the sidings crosses the access to the acid plant on the next board. Towards the back we see the exchange sidings alongside the branch line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted March 6, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 6, 2013 Michael, I know this might be putting the cart before the horse, but have you thought about what rolling stock you will be using? Will there be an internal user fleet? I ask as if your up for some kit bashing and scratch building, you could have the makings of a very good layout. (and of course I can supply from the archive lots of articles on the sort of stock you could use...) Andy G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Hi Michael, I hope you are well, Just a thought, and I may have missed it, or your intentions not to have one , BUT is there a run around loop anywhere? It does add to opperation. Bodgit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.