Hockey Stick Traverser

[DCB]

Doodling a layout plan for an OO layout for a 9 X 12 space to answer a query on this forum I found only 6 X 2 for storage sidings at right angles to a 8 X 2 wall section.

 

As half this wall would be taken up with apprach trackwork to hiden sidings I doodled a Traverser and realised  with no 2 or 3 radius set track I could get 50mm track spacing with the Traverser only moving approx 25mm per road by airing the approach tracks 1 + 3 and 2 + 4.

 

The track would converge on the traverser edge where they met the approach tracks so only the first few inches would present fouling problems.

 

Short spurs beside the approach tunnel marked x or a longer tunnel approach would allow easier loco shunting 

 

Has anyone done anythimg like this? I think I might have a go at some stage, sliding it on an old tkitchen worktop with manual operation and indexing.

[Ray H]

Would a turntable/sector plate idea be a better bet?

 

Pivot it somewhere in the middle of the board along the long side and rotate it around that pivot. That said, even with that idea I wonder about the number of curved tracks that could be accommodated in the available space as the radii would appear to have to be very tight on the innermost curve and that would mean the tracks would need to be spaced further apart to avoid side swiping. You'd probably need about 2.5 inches of track separation on the curves.

[benachie]

This traverser scheme was suggested by Giles Barnabe on p. 598 of December 1999 Railway Modeller.

Alan

Edited February 15, 2014 by benachie

[Joseph_Pestell]

This traverser scheme was suggested by Giles Barnabe on p. 598 of December 1999 Railway Modeller.

Alan

 

You must have an encyclopedic memory! And well done to Giles, who has created a number of ingenious layout plans in his time.

 

I had certainly not come across the idea before and I am surprised that it has not been done often. I don't think that I would complicate life by having the tapered approach tracks. The original requirement was for a room 12' x 9' so one can quite well afford 3' of the 12' length for the traverser and put on 6 tracks at 50mm spacing and minimum radius of 2'. By my reckoning (mental arithmetic) that woud give the shortest of the 6 roads a 5' length and the longest of the roads a 6'6" length. Overall dimensions of the traverser 5' x 3' with a lengthwise movement of 10". 

[Kenton]

 

the tracks would need to be spaced further apart to avoid side swiping

I don't think that would be a problem - I don't think it is proposed to have the curves as storage, just the straight tracks - So nothing to swipe. The minimum radius would also not be a problem appearance is not an issue it all comes down to being able to negotiate them (so there may be a need to exclude 0-8-0 and big locos from using those tracks.

 

The one big advantage is the traverser directional movement, the lengthwise movement being easier to control than horizontal due to the weight distribution.

[TonyMay]

are you sure about interlacing the track?  You can get down to about 20mm or so track centres just by interlacing the sleepers.  Interlacing track requires crossovers and will start to introduce complications into the electrics.

[DCB]

Thanks everyone

 

I shall have to try to track down  the suggestion by Giles Barnabe on p. 598 of December 1999 Railway Modeller.

 

25mm track spacing would mean sleepers interlacing on Set Track and that is probably optimum, only the inner most curve would reach the edge of the traverser, all the others would be the same radius set track 2nd or 3rd radius and they would have short lengths of straight between the curve and the traverser edge,  This would move the fouling point closer to the end than progressively larger radius.  Obviously it would work better with short coaches but only in moving the fouling point closer to the approach tracks,  The straight part has 50mm track spacing while the approach is 25mm.

 

I am getting the urge to actually make one of these, I have made lifting sections and turntables, I had to, you cannot buy a 55 foot or 60 foot in OO so I shortened a Dapol and made a push round one, so the track alignmenmt shoud be staright forward enough.

 

As envisaged for the layout query it could  overlap a doorway in all but the extreme right hand position to get a extra 7 inches or so, but I like the idea of shortening the travel .

 

Of course insead of constant radius curves it couod have 50mm constant track spacing and overlap the doorway by a foot or nmore when in the extreme left hand position.

 

I really must find that Dec 1999 Railway modeller

[benachie]

David,

"I shall have to try to track down  the suggestion by Giles Barnabe on p. 598 of December 1999 Railway Modeller."

Giles didn't really go further than you have yourself - I was merely establishing his precedence!

Alan

[shortliner]

I believe the article was called "The FideLYard"

[kevinlms]

David,

"I shall have to try to track down  the suggestion by Giles Barnabe on p. 598 of December 1999 Railway Modeller."

Giles didn't really go further than you have yourself - I was merely establishing his precedence!

Alan

 

The 'Plan of the Month' type articles seem to fall into 3 categories.

 

1/ layouts that actually exist - a sort of overflow to 'Railway of the Month'.

2/ layouts that the author has seriously considered for themselves, but for reasons usually given, hasn't proceeded with (perhaps too large) and has shown it for some one else to consider.

3/ A 'just supposing' type layout, where the author has come up with a layout possibility, but doesn't intend to build himself. Often these layouts are designed by regular contributors, such as Iain Rice, Paul Lunn, Barry Norman  & many others. The intention is to show what could be possible and usually have a theme - perhaps a junction between two (or more) lines.

Giles's traverser seemed to be in the last category.

[Mrkirtley800]

On 15/02/2014 at 15:50, DavidCBroad said:

Thanks everyone

 

I shall have to try to track down  the suggestion by Giles Barnabe on p. 598 of December 1999 Railway Modeller.

 

25mm track spacing would mean sleepers interlacing on Set Track and that is probably optimum, only the inner most curve would reach the edge of the traverser, all the others would be the same radius set track 2nd or 3rd radius and they would have short lengths of straight between the curve and the traverser edge,  This would move the fouling point closer to the end than progressively larger radius.  Obviously it would work better with short coaches but only in moving the fouling point closer to the approach tracks,  The straight part has 50mm track spacing while the approach is 25mm.

 

I am getting the urge to actually make one of these, I have made lifting sections and turntables, I had to, you cannot buy a 55 foot or 60 foot in OO so I shortened a Dapol and made a push round one, so the track alignmenmt shoud be staright forward enough.

 

As envisaged for the layout query it could  overlap a doorway in all but the extreme right hand position to get a extra 7 inches or so, but I like the idea of shortening the travel .

 

Of course insead of constant radius curves it couod have 50mm constant track spacing and overlap the doorway by a foot or nmore when in the extreme left hand position.

 

I really must find that Dec 1999 Railway modeller

 

David, you don’t have to buy a turntable.  Why not build one yourself from bits of wood, plastikard and wire.  It is not difficult but you have to work with some accuracy.

if you look at my thread,  “Midland Railway in EM gauge”. I described building a 50 foot turntable.  It really is not difficult, and mine works perfectly, although it is manually operated.

I built one for our club which is electrically operated, again not difficult, building your own has the advantage that you can build it any size, and you don’t need to rely on Dapol.

Derek

[imt]

17 hours ago, Mrkirtley800 said:

David, you don’t have to buy a turntable.  

 

I think this is in the wrong thread?  This is about traversers not turntables?