Virney Junction - Scenery ongoing

[Andrew P]

Hi Ray, your Scenics are looking excellent mate, and the Wagon conversion is good, but why not just go for Kadees, 17 / 18 / 19 / 20's for NEM pockets?

[Ray H]

Thanks for the compliment Andy.

 

I keep wondering about Kadees and haven't totally ruled them out although the cost of the conversion of everything wouldn't be that cheap. They do have the advantage of uncoupling in advance - as do a number of the different coupling types - although that probably has limited value if you're in and out of a siding positioning individual wagons one at a time which is what I expect to do. I think you may notice that if you start using a card system to organise wagon movements.

 

I've long pondered over the idea of a simple shortening of the Bachman couplings and wanted to prove to myself that the concept could be sound for those happy to surrender the use of the first and second radius curves, which many modellers seem to be. Admittedly there is the problem of uncoupling although I doubt there is any one automatic system that would cover all bases for each coupling type. I wouldn't totally rule out the use of Perspex strips between the rails although I might be tempted to try and see just how small they could be. Let's face it, the much finer precision of DCC should allow us to be much more accurate with our stopping so that would help keep the lengths shorter.

 

Servo operated (lifted) ramps is another option but I'd need a large number to do what I want to do which means a lot of servo controllers to be built.

 

For the time being the equivalent of the Tri-ang shovel is sufficing.

[Ray H]

You can only post images of so much "grass" before it all gets a bit samey so I'll spare you pictures of the last (large) section of the layout - that along side the larger station goods yard - to be so treated for the first time. Suffice to say what was largely brown emulsion a couple of weeks ago is now a few shades of green.

 

I'm currently reading an electronic version of a book about Goods trains, yards & buildings. This got me thinking about the planned private siding at the back of the platform at the smaller station.

 

.

 

The building (between the "sky" and the vans) was only ever going to be low relief (and not too much relief at that by the time I'd added an external loading platform between building and track). My thoughts are now turning towards adding a Goods Shed instead of the factory with the rail-side wall of the shed against the back wall of the platform. The rear of the platform would be re-shaped so that it ran parallel to the siding.

 

The modification - if it goes ahead - may also provide a means of disguising the (yellow) domestic gas pipe that the domestic authorities (and a few of the neighbours) might complain about if I cut through it!

 

I suppose that I could always paint blue any exposed section of the pipe in front of the "sky" as well as trying to disguise it further.

 

 

[Ray H]

The advantage of getting a layout into an operational state is that you start to discover enhancements that will make the operation easier.

 

One that came to light quite soon was the desire to prepare the next passenger departure from the main fiddle yard without continually having to lift the incoming loco off the track because the siding was just too short to accommodate a loco on each end without fouling an adjacent siding.

 

The fiddle yard ends within an inch of the open garage door - I tend to work in the garage with the door into the house open - so I can't make a fixed extension. The baseboard already overhangs the floor/wall mounted frame that supports it in order to maximise the length.

 

The only realistic option was some kind of "add-on" and preferably one that was reasonably secure. The images show the result.

 

 

The first image shows the (hinged) extension in the operational position. The outer fiddle yard tracks couldn't be extended as I needed somewhere to mount the wooden blocks onto which the hinges for the extension have been fixed. The two sidings nearest the camera are part of the smaller fiddle yard and have longer sidings anyway as there is only a single point leading to those two sidings.

 

The furthest siding from the camera can accommodate two DMUs with relative ease. This had previously been one of the problem sidings but changing the position of trains meant that I didn't need to lengthen the siding, not that I could because the open door is in the way.

 

The short lengths of track were rescued from a number of places and the surface mounted wiring is a quick fix. Electrical continuity is provided via the two hinges, the two outside rails are connected to their adjacent hinges as may be seen in a couple of the pictures. I may bite the bullet and re-wire the board with the links under the baseboard at some stage in the future. After all, it is the first bit of the layout that visitors see when entering the garage.

 

 

The end of the pre-extension fiddle yard was protected by a raised wooden strip screwed to the end of the baseboard. That had to go to accommodate the extension but I wanted to minimise the risk of anything being fatally attracted to the floor in future when the hinged flap was in the folded position. The new barrier was a cut down version of the old one and is now screwed into one of the hinge supporting blocks and can be swung (up) out of the way when the extension is in use. It is just possible to see the pivot end of the strip towards the rear of the first picture.

 

 

The flap in the "out of service" position. There is just enough room to move trains on the sections of the sidings under the extension.

 

 

And finally (as they say), the end on view with the flap folded up and the anti- death plunge bar in place. All I have to remember to do is to lower the bar before I fold the flap over.

 

Another modification could be on the cards for the fiddle yard at the other end of the layout. Watch this space.

[Ray H]

There might not be much evidence of visible work on the layout but there has been quite a bit of activity, much involving the frequent removal of some of the covers along the front of the layout in order to access the NCE mini panels.

 

On-going investigations into the suitability of the mini panels resulted in an initial decision to change to using MERG encoder kits. Two were built, modified to work off 12V DC instead of 15V AC and then tested on the layout. Aside from a resistor getting very hot on each board - one terminally so - there was no evidence of any response from the encoders.

 

Follow up discussions with MERG identified that the encoders needed the own DCC power supply and other than accessory decoders which the encoders would control, there could be nothing else electronic on the same circuit. This would have involved the purchase and possible building of the relevant DCC unit and there was still the uncertainty as to whether the encoder would work with the installed (non-MERG) decoders.

 

As a result I've decided to remove the accessory bus (and decoders) - which will leave a little more power for the track power bus. Instead I shall (in due course) build and fit the MERG CBUS kits necessary to allow the servos operating the signals and points to be controlled by conventional On-Off switches. This will require some changes to the layout wide wiring which may see me introduce a third power district for the main two fiddle yards as this would avoid interfering electrically with other parts of the railway should I inadvertently cause a short circuit whilst manhandling stock. This will use the short circuit protection device that currently protects the accessory bus.

[Ray H]

Although not strictly necessary at this present time, I've decided to work out what signalling I'll need now so that I can position the new servo controllers more appropriately. This will help simplify the wiring between the proposed MERG CBUS kit and the switches/levers that will control the servos.

 

The first station to look at is Buckinhum.

 

 

The design is based on that which I believe would probably have been implemented to cater for Buckinhum's normal role as a through station - that is before the (so the story goes) bridge "failure" just north of the station whereby there are currently no through trains. The story continues stating that the bridge problem is quite recent so it hasn't yet been possible to modify the signalling to accommodate the revised method of working.

 

The signals are identified by letters in the diagram as the numbers are those that identify the switches presently working the points (until the signals and lever frame are provided). The suffixes to the letters allow specific reference to individual signal arms/discs in any discussions within this thread.

 

My first query relates to how close signals A1 & A2 would be to No. 1 crossover on the basis that signalling wasn't designed to handle the current excesses of reversals. Should these two signals be on the station side of the bridge seen in the image below or on the far side of the bridge? I like the idea of the signal being on the far side because all that will be visible from the normal viewing position will be the rear side of the arm of A1 and the top of the post, a feature that I've not seen modelled. It also avoids me having to build (shunt) signal A2 (and I could even place the servo working arm A1 on the baseboard surface). There would certainly be better visibility of the signal for loco drivers if it were on the far side of the bridge.

 

 

Query two relate to signals B, B1/B2, C & C1/C2. B is an alternative to B1/B2 and C an alternative to C1/C2. I'd like to have working disc signals but suspect that getting two shunt discs on the same base to work might be a task too far for me. I wonder if I can manage with a single yellow disc instead of two red ones (or a single red reading over both routes) if signals are required here - see the next observation/query.

 

The real time signalling at some of the local stations did mean hand signals were used to control moves over some crossovers even though the pointwork was controlled from the respective box. On that basis I wonder whether C (or C1.C2) would have definitely been provided.

 

The same thoughts apply to E1 & F and possibly H2 although I'm reasonable confident that H2 would have been provided.

 

I should add that the trap point adjacent to signal F will only be a dummy (because I forgot to install the working one when I was laying the track and it would be a bit difficult to fit a working one in retrospect). This is because the wire in tube connecting the tiebar to the servo would need to pass under the three other tracks between the siding and the front edge of the baseboard.

[Ray H]

 

Virney Junction's signalling can't escape discussion either.

 

I'd welcome confirmation of whether just a single (yellow)signal would be acceptable at signals B, C and F - the possible alternatives of double (red) disc shunt signals B1/B2. C1/C2 & F1/F2 (or the equivalent single red discs reading over either route) have not been shown.

 

I'd also question whether signals B & D (and possibly C) would definitely have been provided given the close proximity of the box.

 

The line to Aylesbry - intentional spelling - is freight only so G is a Stop board or any older equivalent. The passenger service was withdrawn before the war and No. 5 crossover subsequently turned round to provide a (freight only) passing loop on the passenger branch when there was no longer a requirement for Aylesbry trains to use the platform.

 

The Up parcels train will have reached the Aylesbry end of the section long before the day's single freight leaves Virney Junction and the return workings of both are equally spaced so only one train will ever be moving on the section at a time. Can the section be considered as a (through) long siding under those circumstances or is it irrelevant?

 

Signals H1 & H2 are shown on the plan but won't be provided as they are on the fiddle yard side of the bridge immediately in front of the backscene that disguises the end of the scenic section. There is a greater section of the "long siding" visible between the bridge and No. 5 crossover so I was planning to have the Stop board on the scenic section (if one is required).

 

I have yet to decide whether signal E will become a junction home signal - controlling the remote (and unseen) junction where the lines towards Wynsloe & Clayden diverge - or whether there would be a Junction box (off scene) with its own junction signal.

[Andrew P]

Good evening Ray, just having a catch up mate, the Track diagrams look superb, I hope you get the help you need on the Signalling. I need to learn a bit about MERG as well.

[The Stationmaster]

Signalling for Virney Junction is perfectly ok as drawn Ray although G could well be an ancient signal surviving in a new role.  I would also alter the lie of No3 Points (I realise it's a hand point but it would look better drawn the other way I think and might make working sense as well).

 

Buckinhum is a bit more complicated.  A1/A2 should be at the toe of Points 1 or at least no further from the toe than Lock Bat length (c.40ft maximum) otherwise there would have to be a track circuit and you would still need a disc at the point toe.  In view of the poor sighting of A1 I reckon there might well have been an additional Home signal in rear of it (A0) but probably the full 440yards in rear of A1.

 

 The answer to C and B can really be whichever you prefer - either, or even your third option in respect of C would be correct although it a train is going to start from either of these signals then a signal would have normally been provided at least in later years.

 

 

I noticed E2 and wasn't at first sure what I was looking at but then realised teh length of teh bracket platform was compressed - however even with correct separation E2 and D should be at the same elevation unless some sighting reason dictates otherwise.

 

Hope this helps a bit.

[Ray H]

Thanks for that Mike. I hoped you'd be around

 

Signalling for Virney Junction is perfectly ok as drawn Ray although G could well be an ancient signal surviving in a new role. I would also alter the lie of No. 3 Points (I realise it's a hand point but it would look better drawn the other way I think and might make working sense as well).

 

Amended as you've suggested Mike - I think. H1 & H2 will be off-scene and as you surmised, 3 (& 4) would be hand worked.

 

Buckinhum is a bit more complicated.  A1/A2 should be at the toe of Points 1 or at least no further from the toe than Lock Bat length (c.40ft maximum) otherwise there would have to be a track circuit and you would still need a disc at the point toe.  In view of the poor sighting of A1 I reckon there might well have been an additional Home signal in rear of it (A0) but probably the full 440yards in rear of A1.

 

 The answer to C and B can really be whichever you prefer - either, or even your third option in respect of C would be correct although it a train is going to start from either of these signals then a signal would have normally been provided at least in later years.

 

I noticed E2 and wasn't at first sure what I was looking at but then realised teh length of teh bracket platform was compressed - however even with correct separation E2 and D should be at the same elevation unless some sighting reason dictates otherwise.

 

Hope this helps a bit.

 

Again, amended as I think you've suggested. Signal Z will be off scene and points 2, 3 & 4 would be hand-worked in real life.

 

Having pondered the idea overnight, I may see if adding a working trap point to the Factory Siding (alongside signal F) is a practical proposition. I could have kicked myself when I realised I I'd left it out.

 

I shall produce new diagrams for both locations with everything numbered once the signals start to appear.

 

The next task(s) will probably be to operate the railway for a while in order to assess the positioning of the magnets for the Kadee couplings (assuming that currently ongoing experimentation finally convinces me to change over from tension lock couplings). I shall also use this time to see which system I think that I'll decide upon for (what I think will be as close as I can get to) prototypical movement of freight stock.

 

Thanks once again.

 

Edited to indicate that whilst they will be worked by switches or (eventually) levers on my layout, some points would have been worked by yard/train staff rather than the signalman (or women) on the real railway.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Ray H

[Ray H]

Good evening Ray, just having a catch up mate, the Track diagrams look superb, I hope you get the help you need on the Signalling. I need to learn a bit about MERG as well.

Thanks Andy. I was hoping Mike might drop in and I wasn't disappointed.

 

MERG - http://www.merg.org.uk - produce a lot of (electronically) technical information and numerous kits ranging from those that enable you to simulate a welding flash to a complete DCC system. Each kit, which usually requires basic soldering techniques, generally comes with all the components, a set of instructions and details on how to test the completed kit. There's also a forum where you can obtain technical information and guidance on resolving problems if your kit doesn't work once you've finished it. A number of MERG members frequent this forum.

 

Membership is £16 per annum (from memory).

 

The first of the kits for the conversion to CBUS arrived today. I shall make a start on them once I've finished the wiring of the club's control panel assuming that I don't get side-tracked into changing my stock over to Kadee couplings once I get the experimenter's kit (hopefully at or before the weekend).

[Andrew P]

Thanks Andy. I was hoping Mike might drop in and I wasn't disappointed.

 

MERG - http://www.merg.org.uk - produce a lot of (electronically) technical information and numerous kits ranging from those that enable you to simulate a welding flash to a complete DCC system. Each kit, which usually requires basic soldering techniques, generally comes with all the components, a set of instructions and details on how to test the completed kit. There's also a forum where you can obtain technical information and guidance on resolving problems if your kit doesn't work once you've finished it. A number of MERG members frequent this forum.

 

Membership is £16 per annum (from memory).

 

The first of the kits for the conversion to CBUS arrived today. I shall make a start on them once I've finished the wiring of the club's control panel assuming that I don't get side-tracked into changing my stock over to Kadee couplings once I get the experimenter's kit (hopefully at or before the weekend).

Yes Ray, I remember this simple N Gauge Layout operated by MERG at the Nottinham Show last year.

SIMPLES YEAH

[Ray H]

You forgot that it also printed £1 notes - it took that long to build.

 

Seriously, I think it did far, far more than the vast majority of us would ever expect a layout to do. I think it features/featured their SuperBloc system which was a kind of tail-chasing block separated layout so trains only ran as fast as the slowest and could never run into the back of the train in front. That (DC) system also slows trains to a stop and accelerates away rather than abrupt, over the handlebars stopping.

 

I can assure you that my layout only has 6 wires between each baseboard pair.

[Ray H]

Funny how one thing leads to another!

 

Some of my modelling "stuff" is in a spare bedroom upstairs and the remainder in the garage (where everything else is supposed to gradually migrate to). One of those things was a Bachmann Class 03 that has been sat on the computer printer for several weeks awaiting finalisation of the installation of a sound chip. Another thing was the Metcalfe signalbox kit that came free with a Railway Modeller a while ago. For some reason I picked both these up on Saturday and took them into the garage.

 

Instead of further experimentation with the installation of Kadee couplers I decided to build the Metcalfe model (with apologies for the abysmal quality of the phone camera pictures). The roof is still loose in case I opt to fit an interior to it.

 

 

That made me turn my attention to securing the long time cut plastic sheeting that will form the platform surface at Buckinhum but only after I'd cut and fitted the platform surface at Virney Junction first.

 

 

And I then built a mock-up of the Goods Shed for Virney Junction whilst I had numerous pieces of plastic sheet on the makeshift bench in the garage and this required a 45mm length of track adding to the siding so that I can squeeze a third wagon onto the siding and within pinch bar distance of the goods shed.

 

 

I'm not convinced the Metcalfe model will remain, the small Skaledale model (R8632) may take its place.

 

The yellow pipe is the domestic gas main and therefore not something that I can remove ! ! ! I'd welcome suggestions on how I might disguise it.

 

The Class 03 also got finished and looks just like a green Class 03 (hence the lack of a picture).

 

I even spent a short while experimenting further with the Kadee couplers but I'm still struggling to get the reliable operation that I've seen on other layouts.

 

I shall probably mock up a few other structures in the short term to give me a better idea of how the layout might look in due course.

[Andrew P]

Looking Good Ray, can you not clad about a foot of the Yellow pipe in Brick paper and build a factory around it?

[Ray H]

Funny, There was originally going to be a factory at the end of that siding and it could be re-instated at the expense of losing the goods shed as there's not enough space in the yard for the goods shed. I did wonder how prototypical it was to have the shed on one side of the running line and the goods yard on the other but I put one there to simplify the wagon movement idea that I have.

 

I had even thought of painting the pipe blue and hoping it would merge into the background as the diameter's a bit big for a factory chimney!

[Ray H]

I've painted the yellow pipe blue where it passes in front of the backscene and have forgotten to take a picture of it.

 

Instead I managed to grab a short while last evening to look at the other end of the station.

 

 

The currently unsupported road surface is visible. I may move it a little away from the backscene to leave room for a hedge or something slightly lower than the road but clearly visible above it.

 

The rest of the road is hidden behind the visible bridge wall the arches in which I subsequently discovered are about 6mm too low. Thank goodness for mock-ups.

 

The lorry is just entering what will be the goods yard. This arch is going to be moved nearer to the track - and could even share a widened throughway with the right hand of the two tracks - separated by a fence - as I think it looks to far from the track at present and stops me disguising the end of the bridge/road with a significant bit of embankment up from the track level. That said, I can get away with not breaching the backscene at the other end of the bridge arch if I keep the railway and "road" separate so that's now becoming my preferred option.

[MikeHemmings]

I agree with you about a larger arch sheared by one rail and the road entry to the yard.

 

Mike

[Ray H]

Thanks for the comment Mike.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that the two would have shared the same arch without any diving fence back in the early sixties. I suspect separating fencing is a more modern idea.

 

I'll probably give both wide and moved narrow ideas a try and see which looks better. I might leave the road side of the double width opening at the current narrow width in the backscene to limit the extra light visible through from the scenic side.

[Chimer]

Ray

 

Would it be an arch/arches at all, as opposed to a rectangular skew bridge using girders for the road support?  I know (a) you're the king of stonework and (b.) it's only a mock-up, but all the clearances look very very tight.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

Edited March 2, 2016 by Chimer

[Ray H]

Ray

 

Would it be an arch/arches at all, as opposed to a rectangular skew bridge using girders for the road support?  I know (a) you're the king of stonework and (b.) it's only a mock-up, but all the clearances look very very tight.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

Chris

 

The clearances are tight at present because I made a calculation error so the first thing is to correct that and lift the bridge(s). Then I'll block the existing narrow opening and move it nearer to the track and grab a picture before blocking the new opening and opening up the right hand track to double width all to see what they look like. Nothing is cast in stone (or brick!) but I've used a skew with girders on the other end of the scenic section so I thought I'd try something a bit different here.

 

The glories of having a virtually endless supply of "plastic" to make these mock ups.

 

More pictures over the weekend if all goes to plan.

[Ray H]

 

Experiment No.2, with single roadway moved nearer the track after the whole bridge assembly has been lifted by 6mm to restore the correct clearances.

 

 

Experiment No. 3, with the roadway sharing the rail arch and the outlines of the arches from the previous two experiments visible. The horizontal tightness is still there but might be cured by widening the opening by about 6mm. I'll try to reduce the excess of light through each arch as part of experiment 3a.

 

I have in my mind that the story line could be that the (right-hand) branch was originally a double track line that was singled and eventually reduced to a long siding status long after passenger services were withdrawn. The crossover at that end of the station was reversed at the same time so that passenger trains on the other line could use the remaining platform in both directions and that platform could be extended, leaving the (now) loop line to provide access to the long siding and somewhere to recess trains if required.

 

That would give me a chance to model a derelict platform wall against the platform loop line although the bulk of the rest of the platform was removed to provide room for the second siding in the otherwise small goods yard. That might also support the reason why the goods shed is the other side of the running line.

[Andrew P]

Hi Ray, I've been following fairly closely but that last pic looks WRONG to me mate, I much prefer the separate Road Entrance.

[MikeHemmings]

I agree with Andy the last photo looks wrong, I think the opening needs to be wider to give more room between the yard entrance and the line.

 

Mike

[Ray H]

Thanks for the feedback chaps.

 

I agree the opening width looks wrong although I'm sure that I've seen pictures of examples of "road" and track sharing the same opening.

 

The measurements used were cribbed from the ScaleScenes bridge kit which is probably based on the bridge face and track intersection being at 90º. Here the intersection could be greater than 120º which I now see needs the opening enlarging. I'll experiment with that concept over the weekend and see/post the outcome before making a decision which could still go the way you've both suggested.

 

I'm partly drawn to the dual usage of the opening because it provides a bit of an unusual story line for the situation modelled as indicated above.