Trewartha Quay (00)

[aforsyth]

Hi Andy, Michael, Richard (and Gary),

 

Thanks for the queries. Life has been busy recently, but I am now building the baseboards for the layout. Although I still like the simplicity of the earlier versions, there seems to be a lot of potential and operational interest for the final plan I developed, so I increased the baseboard size to 5' x 14", printed out the plan from AnyRail and checked clearances and train lengths. All looks really good. And like Michael suggested, I'm including a basic 2'6" fiddle yard, which allows a mainline loco to deliver a train of 5 wagons or so, before running round and off stage again.

 

 

Michael - those are some great tips and ideas, thank you. Funnily enough, I was watching some videos earlier of boat / special trains on the Weymouth Harbour Tramway in the 80s/90s, and it's interesting that there's a group that now wants to try to re-open the Tramway in some form. It's definitely inspirational - but I think on this layout, I still feel it pulling further west into Cornwall. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'Good Depot' ends up some kind of china clay facility and vans are replaced with 'hoods' in the future!

 

Here's the 5' baseboard frame under construction. I will be taking the top off again, and cutting it to fit the track base, before starting work on the uprights to support it, which I've never done before! That'll be interesting. :-) The parts to the left of the frame are for the fiddleyard board.

 

 

Sorry for the delay in news - I'm only getting one or two evenings are week to work on the layout at present; if it's not work, it's family matters! Anyway, I'll try to keep you updated. I can't wait to get the boards done and basic track layout down, which will be further than I've got for decades... 

 

Alan

[47137]

Here's the 5' baseboard frame under construction. I will be taking the top off again, and cutting it to fit the track base, before starting work on the uprights to support it, which I've never done before! That'll be interesting. :-) 

Glad to hear this project is underway!

 

With the track base sitting on supports above the frame, you could take the opportunity to add a diagonal to the top of the frame and then work around it when you put the supports in. The diagonal doesn't need to be a particularly large cross section - something 30 x 10 mm (like Wickes door stop) would be fine, but it will increase the strength of the frame and reduce its ability to twist. If the diagonal is going to foul a point motor, then two in a shallow vee shape will be fine.

 

- Richard.

[aforsyth]

Glad to hear this project is underway!

 

With the track base sitting on supports above the frame, you could take the opportunity to add a diagonal to the top of the frame and then work around it when you put the supports in. The diagonal doesn't need to be a particularly large cross section - something 30 x 10 mm (like Wickes door stop) would be fine, but it will increase the strength of the frame and reduce its ability to twist. If the diagonal is going to foul a point motor, then two in a shallow vee shape will be fine.

 

- Richard.

 

Thanks Richard - good idea. I'm really glad of any advice like this, because to be honest, I have not built a 'real' model railway that has got past the baseboard / track laying stage in the last 20 years!

 

Would it be enough if I fixed such a diagonal to the bottom of the frame rather than the top (assuming the layout has legs bolted on)? I was looking at my plans for the locations of supports, which are quite inflexible due to point motor locations and track base width, so any 'topside' diagonal is going to be difficult there. I suppose there is the question of access for wiring, but it shouldn't affect that too much?

 

Thanks,

Alan

[aforsyth]

...

As for era and setting, I rather like Weymouth Harbour. Imagine in the '80's you have a harbour with parcels and passenger traffic to the ferry, but also some curtain-sided vans for general imports (fruit perhaps) via Speedlink, and a small oil terminal for diesel fuel for the fishing fleet and ferry. Now the passenger traffic might be DMU, and the sidings shunted by an 08 or similar, but what if the goods arrived behind a "main line" diesel, which uncouples and waits in the platform for the wagons to be removed before returning light-engine. When a train is ready to depart it returns to collect them. So no run-round required!

...

 

Just to mention if it's of interest to anyone. I picked up the new (?) Model Rail 'Ideas for Layouts' magazine from WHSmiths today.

Planning magazines can be quite variable in their quality and practicality I've found, but this one focuses on innovative methods of creating models of real locations in minimum spaces - great for people like myself! Paul A Lunn has co-produced it, and towards the end he describes a great idea for a 4mm Weymouth Harbour layout in less than 6'x4'. There's also some great step-by-step advice on creating track inset into a roadway, and improving Dapol's dock crane - both very relevant for my plans on Trewartha. MR also include plans and descriptions for layouts on: Aldeburgh, Builth Road, Highley (Severn Valley), Isle of Wight, Manitoba Quays (a modern Minories) and Oakworth. All in all, quite innovative and inspirational.

 

I think perhaps a minimal layout of Weymouth Harbour would be fun in the future - hopefully Trewartha will be a good training ground for that!

 

Alan

 

Edit: fixed typos.

[47137]

Thanks Richard - good idea. I'm really glad of any advice like this, because to be honest, I have not built a 'real' model railway that has got past the baseboard / track laying stage in the last 20 years!

 

Would it be enough if I fixed such a diagonal to the bottom of the frame rather than the top (assuming the layout has legs bolted on)? I was looking at my plans for the locations of supports, which are quite inflexible due to point motor locations and track base width, so any 'topside' diagonal is going to be difficult there. I suppose there is the question of access for wiring, but it shouldn't affect that too much?

The bottom of the layout would be fine structurally, but you will want to add a few offcuts of the same thickness so the model will stand on a table without rocking. If you add the brace using only wood screws you will see the increase in rigidity straight away and still be able to remove it for unplanned maintenance.

 

Something I have found extremely useful during construction is a pair of plywood ends screwed onto the layout. If they are slightly oversize, you can rest the whole assembly on its edge or upside down during construction.

 

- Richard.

[andyram]

Just to mention if it's of interest to anyone. I picked up the new (?) Model Rail 'Ideas for Layouts' magazine from WHSmiths today.

Planning magazines can be quite variable in their quality and practicality I've found, but this one focuses on innovative methods of creating models of real locations in minimum spaces - great for people like myself! Paul A Lunn has co-produced it, and towards the end he describes a great idea for a 4mm Weymouth Harbour layout in less than 6'x4'. There's also some great step-by-step advice on creating track inset into a roadway, and improving Dapol's dock crane - both very relevant for my plans on Trewartha. MR also include plans and descriptions for layouts on: Aldeburgh, Builth Road, Highley (Severn Valley), Isle of Wight, Manitoba Quays (a modern Minories) and Oakworth. All in all, quite innovative and inspirational.

 

I think perhaps a minimal layout of Weymouth Harbour would be fun in the future - hopefully Trewartha will be a good training ground for that!

 

Alan

 

Edit: fixed typos.

That magazine sounds interesting, it may help me with planning my latest layout. I must try and get a copy.

[aforsyth]

So - onward progress. I've taken on board Richard's wise suggestion regarding anti-twist measures. I used some redundant pine picture frame lengths on the underside of the frames, hopefully as he was suggesting, together with some offcuts to make it more stable when on the floor. These are just screwed on, so I can remove them if they cause problems at any stage.

 

 

I've stuck the AnyRail printouts on the main board to help in cutting out the track base later. I made the mistake of choosing 'borderless' printing, since the first time I tried printing this out, the size was correct but a thin white border masked the edges of each printed page. However, with the 'borderless' option (at least in my case), the AnyRail page edges were still missing as before, but each standard printer page image was stretched slightly to cover the borders too! Therefore this has the odd effect that each printed page is slightly 'zoomed in', with ill-matching edges, but the overall printed plan dimensions and size are correct. After confirming this by laying the peco points and track on top, I decided not to print it all out again! Lesson learned for next time.

 

 

 

Next step: creating the track bed horizontal supports and vertical risers, and attaching these to the frame. Once these are positioned and screwed in, I will cut the track bed out with a jigsaw. So much work for such a small layout! 

 

By the way, other than using cork sheet under the track (which I plan to use), what other methods are there to deaden the track noise level? Does it help to add something like carpet underlay between track bed supports and the track bed itself, like here?

 

 

Thanks,
Alan

[andyram]

There is the Gaugemaster foam underlay which is a alternative to using cork sheeting. I know many people like this. I have used it once, but it is too fiddly for me as you have to cut it to shape for points. I will use cork sheet on my next project.

[aforsyth]

Thanks Andy. I have never been inspired to try foam underlay, although I'm sure it's good at noise insulation. Maybe it's those images of a big roll of artificial grey underlay from old Hornby catalogues that somehow puts me off? I do know that Peco and other underlays look better.

 

Back to cork sheet. One disadvantage I've heard about (and seen) with cork sheet is that PVA from ballasting makes it hard and brittle, thereby losing the cushioning effect it has. Does anyone know if there is any way to retain the noise insulating properties of cork even after track ballasting using PVA or equivalent?

[47137]

The Gaugemaster underlay may be ok, but beware the old-fashioned moulded grey foam underlays disintegrate after a while, and you will have only dust where they were. Copydex (latex adhesive) stays flexible and seems harmless to cork.

 

- Richard.

[andyram]

I have never had any trouble with the cork.

[aforsyth]

Thanks Richard, Andy. I'll try using Copydex, then. By the way, what's the best type of paint to use on cork?

 

On my last semi-successful layout (in my youth), I used thin sheet-polystyrene insulation material for the track bed, which was a wonderful insulator until I painted it grey with matt emulsion (I think). It went hard and brittle after that, and had the further disadvantage that it was easily damaged, with white flecks a regular floor decoration ... never again!

[47137]

I've never deliberately painted cork underlay, but it has picked up over-spray from painting the track - acrylic car primer or acrylic Tamiya model paint. I don't think these are really capable of causing problems, as long as you don't let them get on the walls or the carpet :-)

 

- Richard.

[andyram]

I painted the cork underlay with the same ready mix brown paint that can be bought in squeezy bottles from many art shops cheap. I think cost me 99p from the discount book shop "The Works". It covered the baseboard well and did a passable job on the cork (I only cut lengths of cork to go under the track). If ballasted well you won't see the paint anyway.

[mjcampbell]

Alan, Weymouth harbour is great inspiration. Here's a few pictures I took a couple of years back...

 

 

 

 

 

I still fear the plan is rather crowded at the right-hand end - 5 tracks, a road, back-scene, retaining and harbour walls - it could just look contrived. Anyway with a fiddle yard at one end it is a shame to hide so much of the layout for hidden tracks. How about dropping the hidden siding, and using that space for the loop, leaving 3 sidings and a but of space for a back-drop?

 

 

Apologies for butchering your nice plan but it should give you the idea. The rear right-hand track could disappear between buildings so a right-hand fiddle yard could be added if needed, though it isn't for interesting operation. The 3-way point might need to move left a bit to leave a long enough loop and sidings but overall it should be a little less crowded, and leave enough space to set the scene scenically. 

[aforsyth]

Thanks Michael.Yes, Weymouth is a great place. It's our most common 'seaside trip' (always by train so far), which makes it an even better contender for a future layout as it will be welcomed by the family! On recent visits I was under the impression that the old harbour station and tracks were being torn up, but it seems that this is not entirely the case, and it might yet all be saved and re-opened one day. I really do hope so!

 

I do appreciate your sensible layout suggestion. I think you might well be right - there is a danger that too much is being squashed in. However, perhaps like a naive beginner, I am going to attempt it anyway at first, since I really like the trackplan: the 'self-contained' nature of the layout even without the fiddleyard and suggestion via the storage tracks of the onward journey to a secondary/branch line.

If it's clear that the storage sidings are overkill, I will rationalise the track layout as you have done, which thankfully wouldn't appear to be too difficult, other than some changes of point positions.

[andyram]

Those photos brought back some memories. I used to holiday in Weymouth during the first week of August for several years during the mid to late 1990's. I used to go with my ex girlfriend and her family. Some happy memories as her dad was a train enthusiast and we often would walk the harbour branch, or nip off to Wareham on the train and then catch a bus to Norden for the Swanage Railway.

Sadly the final holiday there was less enjoyable. The guest house we always stayed in was closing down, our relationship was on the rocks and we split up a week after we returned.

My wife and I are going there this year so hopefully we will have a much better holiday.

 

The updated track plan looks good, but I do like the hidden sidings in the original plan.

[aforsyth]

So - almost 4 months later after a busy Summer, an update!

 

The basic baseboard structure is now complete, mainly due to 'getting down to business' over the last two weekends, when the different components were put together. It's pretty sturdy, although the strange non-symmetrical arrangement of the legs is due to the requirement that the main board straddles a full-size electronic keyboard, such is the lack of space in my office!

 

Here are a couple of pics - first a view of the front, from the left-hand side by the fiddleyard:

 

 

 

Second, an end-on pic from the front right, showing more of the 10 bridge-shaped 2"x1" supports I've used to lift the trackbed above the lower scenery base. The latter will be built up for dock, beach and stream sections. The supports are not yet glued in place, as I am considering adding a couple of layers of cork sheet between each support and the trackbed to help deaden rail noise in the frame.

 

 

 

This was far more effort than I expected - although I'm quite pleased with the result. I've promised myself that next time I will investigate alternative methods (thin plywood shell, foam-based construction, etc.), which hopefully could be cheaper and quicker to build!

Any comments or suggestions very welcome!

 

Anyhow, now I can finally move on to building the railway itself, so as I await arrival of the points, I'll start musing on the wiring in the next post.

 

 

Cheers,

Alan

[aforsyth]

So - on to the wiring.

 

Although I primarily want to use DCC for this layout, I also want to be able to switch over to using my older Gaugemaster DS DC controller for sessions, since many of my locos are not yet chipped, and there will always be non-chipped visitors.

All points (other than the insulfrog double slip) will be electrofrog, so require the insulating rail joiners on frogs, but I will follow suggested practice and apply the same double rail breaks to the slip too, particularly to avoid any issues when operating on DCC.

 

I found it helpful to imagine a busy period on the layout, which allowed me to picture how much isolation and control I needed for 2 DC controllers (i.e. 2 operators) max. Here's the sample scenario (see diagram below for number references):

 

• Single car DMU arrives from the main fiddleyard to the lower platform road ('bay'), then moves to siding 3 to await further duty.
• 08/Pannier light engine arrives on the same platform road from the fiddleyard, then moves over to the spur at location 4, awaiting shunting moves.
• A second 08 or class 25 arrives from the storage tracks (5 or 6) to the lower platform road, reversing to propel its short train into the sidings (1 or 2), before leaving light engine for the fiddleyard.
• Meanwhile, a DMU / autotrain is shuttling backwards and forwards between fiddleyard and storage roads (5, 6) via the upper platform road, and may be waiting on that platform road while other trains access the storage roads.

 

Thanks to some advice on the yourmodelrailway forum, I have come up with the following high-level electrical block diagram for DC operation (DCC will require all 3 blocks set to the same controller, and all isolating sections 'live').

 

Blue numbers are electrical / logical blocks, red are isolated sidings & locations noted below, crosses are double-rail breaks, blue breaks represent block boundaries. Precise locations of power feeds are not shown, that's for later!

 

 

 

 

• Block 1 controls the upper platform road alone, block 2 controls the lower platform road & sidings and block 3 controls the slip and upper storage roads. The reason for 3 blocks is to enable movement under controller 1 from the storage roads to the lower platform road, while a train arrives in the upper platform road from the fiddleyard and returns, under controller 2.
• Sidings 1 and 2 have simple isolating sections, and the plain track of siding 3 is an isolating section to enable loco storage too.
• The spur at position 4 is also a simple isolating section, to hold a small loco, and the storage sidings (5, 6) can be isolated independently.

 

I'd be glad for any feedback on this! Assuming that this setup provides the flexibility that I need for DC, but can be all 'switched out' for DCC operation, I will then move on to work out locations for track feeds and probably under-track uncoupling magnets, as I intend to experiment with the Kirby method of modifying Bachmann tension-lock couplers to use magnets for easier uncoupling in due course.

 

All comments and criticisms welcome! I have little experience with DCC or layout building in general (for 30 years or so), so much of my plan is based on principles I've read rather than any practical experience.

 

 

Thanks,
Alan

[mjcampbell]

The sectioning looks pretty sensible to me. I'd have thought red 3 and 4 could be the same section, given how short the line is - if fed from the headshunt (4) you can always isolate the loop with the points - though of course for DCC operation you may want to keep the tracks always live. The same applies to red 1 and 2, and red 5 and 6 - for DC operation you could rely on the points to isolate.

 

If I were building for DC I'd have the three blue sections plus red 4 as switched feeds, and use point isolation for the rest. One option to simplify the panel for DC operation is to do that - but have "override" switches under the board/panel to make red 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 always live regardless of point position. (A 6-pole 2-way rotary switch?)

 

Also you don't need all those breaks to be in both rails, and I can't see the need for breaks between sequential points facing the same way..

[47137]

This all looks good to me too.

 

If the railcar/dmu is fairly short, it might be worthwhile to add a short isolating section to the upper platform. By short I mean about 4 or 5 inches from the end of the track. Just enough to hold a shunter - this would make a place to hold a loco which isn't actually doing anything in view on the layout. And of course just set the switch to 'on' for DCC operation.

 

- Richard.

[aforsyth]

Michael - thanks for your feedback!

 

I would agree with insulfrog-type point switching being much simpler than isolating sections, but when the wiring has to be robust (i.e. extra feeds at heel & toe of points for DCC & use of electrofrogs), it seems to me that the best compromise is to have a potentially fully 'live' layout, with a few DC block sections and switchable isolating sections as and where needed. I've spent a couple of hours this evening try to again work out how I could use DC route-based isolation (i.e. the insulfrog approach) on the layout without causing problems for fully live DCC, but I can't come up with anything other than this 'middle of the road' approach. Any ideas?

 

Regarding the double rail breaks - yes, now that the dust is settling a bit, I think that certainly where there is no block section boundary these can be reduced to standard single rail breaks, generally protecting the nearby point's frog rail.

 

 

 

Richard - that's an interesting idea. Although there is a fiddleyard immediately to the left of the loco at that point, it might well be sensible to be able to hold a shunter there. Can you think of a stock movement that would require that?

 

 

Thanks guys - much appreciated.

[47137]

Richard - that's an interesting idea. Although there is a fiddleyard immediately to the left of the loco at that point, it might well be sensible to be able to hold a shunter there. Can you think of a stock movement that would require that?

 

I can suggest plenty of ideas, but whether they are suitable for the location I'm not sure:

1) The autotrain/dmu is out of service, and the passenger train is formed by one loco-hauled coach. The train engine is held in the dead section while the local shunter removes the coach, takes it to the lower platform and lets the train engine "run round".

2) The local shunter is not allowed on the 'main line' and so when it is time for routine servicing, it is taken out of the station by a main line loco. The dead section is a place to hold the local shunter while the main line loco couples up to it.

3) A 'high value' incoming working into the upper platform requires one wagon or coach to be topped and tailed. I'm thinking royal train, undisclosed military item or whatever. The leading loco stays in the dead section while the trailing loco returns the empty train.

4) The local shunter is deemed to have 'failed' and the dead section is a place to hold it pending a local repair.

 

Also, the dead section might help operation of the layout without the left-hand fiddle yard. This might be useful for a local exhibition where they have room for only half the model. Or operation in a small space indoors.

 

- Richard.

[rue_d_etropal]

keeping it simple is always best way forward. I wire up all my points as live, insulfrog not electrofrog at all.

Putting breaks in rails at every point end on one rail(prefereably the same one), and simple on/off switches across gaps. It is then future compatible, whether DCC or DC, and using decent switches(not micro ones) reduces chances of failure. I would add a few more breaks on platform track at back, maybe with diodes so auto shuttle can be operated. Not a new idea, one I have been using for over 10 years, and makes exhibitions a lot easier, as you can then always have something moving, even if it is just a DMU shuttling back and forward. Simple works best.

[mjcampbell]

I was aware you are using electrofrog points - as I always do, and fit a switch to the point actuation to feed the frog - but you still wouldn't need as many breaks as you have shown. A siding closed by an electrofrog point is still isolated as both rails are the same polarity, it's where points face each other you need isolation.

 

Of course if you need to keep sidings live for DCC you need to isolate them from the frog and feed them separately. However fitting 2-way switches for "DC mode" (take feed from point direction, keeping the isolation feature) or "DCC Mode" (always live) could be a way to cover both modes. These switches could be simple slide switches under the board that can be set when changing "mode" rather than cluttering up a control panel.