Guest Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 At the top of the Holway Rd, Russ, I always turn left for Cromer - not too familiar with anything in the Holt direction, I'll check out Thaxters at some point. With everyone's help a day or two ago, I thought I'd solved the fiddle yard dilemma and was going to opt for the 2nd plan in Post#45 above. In a width of 2'6", I get 6 storage roads with much better than expected capacity. Having had a think, I've somehow managed to convince myself it's not such a good idea! At the join between the scenic boards and the fiddle yard boards, I need to transition from Tillig Code 83 to Peco Code 100. An added complication is the mismatched radius... I'll be going from Tillig R484/543 straight to Peco R438/505 and immediately after the baseboard join, trains will encounter (in one direction) a curved point in the facing direction (RH image below). I have it in my head that going straight into a curved point of smaller radius immediately after the baseboard join is a bad idea... something will go wrong. At the moment, I'm thinking it would be a better idea to keep Tillig Code 83 of the same radius on both sides of the join (LH image below). This way, I don't have to transition from Code 83 to Code 100 right at the baseboard join which I think can only be a good thing. Edit: 50x50 planed has been purchased to replace the trestles with proper height-adjustable legs, together with the timber to create the two fiddle yard boards. Knowing that a width of two feet wasn't really going to work, I'm going to build both fiddle yard boards 5'6" x 2'6" and then take it from there. Sometimes, it helps for me to stare at a couple of bare baseboards in 1/1 scale rather than trying to plan on paper or PC...! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold colin penfold Posted April 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 10, 2015 Pete, sorry if you know this, there are peco special joiners designed to transition code 75 to 100. Suspect they will do 83 to 100 also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Hi Colin. The transition itself isn't an issue. Rather than waste money on any kind of factory-produced joiner, I'm happy to shim one side up to the correct height and then secure using copperclad if need be. It's the location of the transition right at the join between boards that was bothering me. Having said that, I took a piece of Tillig Code 83 sectional track and a piece of Peco Code 100 sectional track and would you believe, the rail height is almost a perfect match? I wasn't expecting that, and it means one less thing to worry about (always a good thing in my case)! What I'm really stressing about is the reliability of curved points of, shall we say, limited radius. Ian (Temeraire) mentioned that he's had no issues with them on his Exford Park, but a search through RMWeb reveals plenty of members who wouldn't touch them with someone else's barge pole. They would appear to be a particular nightmare in the facing direction... If a 4VEP leaves the scenic section of the layout at a scale 45mph and then immediately "falls over" entering the fiddle yard, I can imagine that becoming a bit annoying after a while! I'll figure out what to do. I'm halfway through building the fiddle yard boards, so I just need to figure it out soon. One thing's for sure, if I don't use curved points, the storage siding capacity for an 11' long layout is going to be a bit pathetic... In my head, I've decided that I must be able to hold a 6-car, but an occasional 8-car would be nice... Edited to remove spelling mistakes probably caused by lack of decent morning coffee. Pound shop ground coffee may be cheap but... uck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Siberian Snooper Posted April 11, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 11, 2015 Can I suggest that you do a trial to see whether or not it works for you, before making a decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Can I suggest that you do a trial to see whether or not it works for you, before making a decision. Absolutely. I'd like the curved point option to work, purely because it gives the best capacity in the storage loops, so will probably order the required number. Hopefully if I make sure they're laid flat and level everything will be ok. If not, I can gnash teeth later! I just wish I had a stack of used points leftover from previous layouts that I could experiment with so I didn't have to spend good money on something that *may* or *may not* work..! If access to the back was not an issue, I would, as others have suggested, go for the traverser option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold colin penfold Posted April 11, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 11, 2015 If you narrow to single line on entry and exit you could have a couple of single-ended roads for storing the longer units in. They could then reverse and pick uo the correct running line. Obviously not an option with double track as you'd then need crossovers. Add me to the "I got rid of setrack curved points cos they gave me grief" camp. Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Add me to the "I got rid of setrack curved points cos they gave me grief" camp. Sorry. I appreciate your honesty! That is my biggest worry (above). Also, I don't want to narrow to a single entry/exit road as for me, the whole point of a roundy is to set two trains running and sit back with a beverage and watch as a 4EPB passes a 4VEP on the scenic side with absolutely no intervention from me. I shall cosy up with AnyRail later and try to resolve the issue, even if it means going back to what I wanted in the first place - 6-car capacity in the loops. I do think it will boil down to Siberian Snooper's advice of "suck it and see"... I just don't particularly want to spend £120 on 8 x Setrack curved points only to have to shift them as "used" on ebay a few weeks later when all my stock falls over... Personally, I blame you Colin for making me think too much! I much prefer my usual "leap in feet first" approach! If something doesn't work, hit it with a hammer and all's right with the world... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted April 11, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 11, 2015 Those peco curved set track points caused me a load of grief with my layout at sheringham. I had a couple of Hornby curved points which were 2nd to 3rd radius and they were much less of a problem Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 5 minutes with AnyRail and this was the result... no curved points and one road in each direction should hold an 8-car. No nasty reverse curves either. Hmmm... this might be the one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted April 11, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 11, 2015 Are you not going to connect both loops so trains can reverse? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Are you not going to connect both loops so trains can reverse? Oh, for God's sake... I knew there was something... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 OK... the final plan (scenic and hidden) is below. I have taken on board Russ's point about changeover, but I'd forgotten there's a reversing siding at the front! Doh. Leaving up/down crossovers out of the fiddle yard saves the expense of an extra 4 points and the associated motors/wiring. If I decide it was a missed opportunity, it will be a doddle to add them. Operational interest may be limited but I make no secret of the fact that this is a layout just for watching trains go by... My son said that if I was doing this in N, I could encase the whole thing in perspex and include a "coin-operated" mechanism. 50p for two minutes? As it is, I'm itching to get to work with the scenics and will push myself a little. There will still be plenty of "out of the box" items, but if I can't bash something to look the way it should, I'll have to scratchbuild. Looking forward to this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ess1uk Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Looking forward to seeing this progress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
class"66" Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Some very nice plans above... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted April 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 12, 2015 Are you not going to connect both loops so trains can reverse? Oh, for God's sake... I knew there was something... Hy Pete and Russ From my own experience of building roundy roundy club layouts I would leave out the reversing line. Having them in the past I found they shorten the usable length of storage in the loops they are connected with. Being a DC waller they add to complicating the wiring up and lead to confusion on the control panel with certain members of the clubs I have belonged to*. They very raely get used for their intended role and end up being used as a extra siding for the Up line operator. *I did help on one layout where the operator who was using the reversing loops had the token and no one else was allowed to operate them until he had given up the token . The token was a lump of wood on a string worn around the operators neck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
puck Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 If you don't have a reversible part in the fiddle yard, won't all your EMU's end up on the inner circuit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Thanks for the comments guys. I can always put a pair of crossovers into the fiddle yard if need be, but as a purely self-indulgent home layout (and I am MAXED out for space), I'll give it a go "as is". As Clive says, perhaps it's not essential. I'm fully aware that if this was for exhibiting there would be several issues... 6 roads in the fiddle yard would not be enough, some curves are probably over-tight... the list goes on! If I need to reverse a unit and don't want to manhandle it from "up" line to "down" line or vice versa, there's the Overground siding at the front of the layout which should, at a pinch, hold 6 coaches. Looking at the aerial view of the track layout immediately before the station, it's also apparent that I've left out another crossover. This I did want to include, but on the layout, thanks to a lack of space, this is where the curve starts to tighten a little, so no amount of head-scratching with the Tillig geometry could make it work. There are a ridiculous amount of points in the Tillig range including (I think) 6 curved points, but it's just not possible. Building the track from scratch would have offered a solution, but I don't want to go down that road just yet. I've now reached a bit of an impasse where the fiddle yard boards are built but I've only just ordered the track and points needed. Until that arrives, there won't be any progress to show. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 I'll look out the window and look for things to add. Take some pictures! I should hopefully be able to get down to Croydon June(ish), I just wish it were sooner. The plan is to walk the route of the area to be modelled (from the station down to the Tramlink flyover) and stock up on some detail pics for future reference. Google Streetview and the "bird's eye" view using Bing Maps is incredibly useful but no substitute for a visit. Plenty of pubs on the way if I get a little thirsty, too... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted April 13, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 13, 2015 Hi Pete Following Puck's comment I had a second look at the track plan, You do need a reversing line but only a connection at one end so that you can send back the unit you have reversed on the scenic side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Hi Pete Following Puck's comment I had a second look at the track plan, You do need a reversing line but only a connection at one end so that you can send back the unit you have reversed on the scenic side. Ah... I see what you mean. Without that connection in the fiddle yard, unit enters reversing siding from down line, exits to up line and then is condemned to circling the up line for all eternity... Two extra points and half a metre of flex track should solve that. Well spotted! I hate track planning... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted April 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 13, 2015 I thought of something else, at the planning stage you are thinking about sitting with a brew and watching units running round with a time link of about half one on a Thursday afternoon. What happens when you finish your brew and see your stock box with a Crompton and a load of seacows. Its now half nine on a Sunday morning, there is a possession and you want to run round the seacows. I think you need a crossover in the fiddle yard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 I thought of something else... Need coffee. It's too early for a beer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Sure will, FYI stock wise there can be the odd interesting thing Inbetween the diet of 377s & 455s... In Leaf season the sandite unit, 73s and 66s occasionally trundle through... The odd steam Railtour has passed this line (and diesel too) and if the Carshalton line is in a mess 319's can be diverted this way without prior warning ( and happens very often). I will take a few pictures from the train later this week, but I think the trackside scenery consists of old sofas, bicycles, car tyres, fallen fencing decorated up with graffiti. Don't underestimate the gradient the tramline climbs though, that's a pretty steep incline. On a side note I saw the old lines connecting to the selhurst fast lines has been cleared and excavation work is taking place... We hear (politicians promising) rumours of future fast services to London Victoria and overground extending to a new platform at Cheam (new as in it it's only been waiting to be built for 100 years). Thanks. I have in mind some of the older Sandite and De-Icer units to be seen at Selhurst Depot when I was there in the 80s and 90s. If I can find a suitable donor unit. might make a nice first kit-bash. Not keen on the 377s or the Class 66 so the timeframe for West Croydon will pre-date those. A Crompton or two and Dapol's new ED (if it ever arrives) will be a must for the occasional freight and imaginary parcels working... Bratchell's 319 and 455 would be perfect if I ever have the surplus cash and of course, I'm pinning my hopes on a RTR 4SUB at some point in the future (please). If I'm turning the clock back for a 4SUB, a 2BIL would be nice, although it would no doubt look totally ridiculous alongside Tramlink. Cue a chorus of "It's my train set"... Just goes to show how well-served the 3rd rail modeller is compared to just a few short years ago! Re: Cheam, I hadn't heard about that plan... there certainly is plenty of room in the big void between the platforms left when the fast lines were lifted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 I can wander down here this weekend and take a few pictures from the local streets if you like ? Don't put yourself out on my account, but if you do happen to be anywhere near, I wouldn't say no! I have a folder on the PC of lineside shots but there's not actually that much around on Flickr etc. Trackside will be modelled as it is today, including a section of Tramlink down as far as the tram flyover, but I'll mess with history and run stuff from an earlier era. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 A little progress at last. The two fiddle yard boards are now built, surfaced with cork and aligned with brass dowels then held together with the traditional coach screws, washers and wing-nuts. I don't have enough trestles to support four boards this size, so 50x50mm legs have been built for all four boards. Each leg has an adjustable foot... this house was built in 1874, so wonky floors are to be expected! I've been messing about with the fiddle yard track layout. I've added a crossover at the RH end only, which will allow anything using the reversing siding on the scenic side to re-appear "right road". Next job is to get all four boards aligned and then drill for the dowels to attach the two fiddle yard boards to the two scenic boards... I'll take some pictures of all four boards joined together as the whole thing is proving to be quite a size! Wiring will follow (boring), and once I know everything's working, the fiddle yard boards can be split and stored away so I can concentrate on the two scenic boards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.