Alternative main line terminus in OO

[john dew]

I am slightly confused by your last sentence - do forgive me: do you mean that we want TC to wait until the schedule has finished completely, or we want TC not to wait until the schedule has finished completely, but only until the train has cleared all conflicting routes, before allowing the next train to run? I had thought that TC would automatically do the latter, and I am not sure why we would need it to do the former - can you elaborate?

 

Thank you again very much for your thoughts: they are much appreciated.

 

 

If we number the sidings from top to bottom 1 thru 13

 

I suspect that a train destined for block 2 would not release the route containing the turnout for block 13 until it had arrived at block 2 and finished the schedule.

 

I would have thought you would want a train in 13 released sooner than that?

 

It would need to be tested on the simulator and I am sure there are workarounds.

 

 

I would like to think some more about loco spurs but I guess that first you have to come to a decision about which version to use?

 

As I understand it, the only section of the lower level that is "covered" is visible, easily accessible and involves access routes rather than a series of storage sidings. So it would seem that the principle concern is hauling 12 coach trains up a gradient of 1 in ?   on a curve.

 

Hopefully someone with more experience than I can give you detailed advice. On Granby there is a 2" difference in height between the storage boards and the station boards.When trains exit the storage yard they have to climb the 2"  through 36" radii for about 9' .....so 1 in 50. A Castle can haul 9 carriages without a problem. For most 4-6-0s six carriages is about max and some struggle a bit. In most cases I set the schedule speeds a bit faster than I would like.

 

Having spent some time thinking about this .....if you are satisfied the gradient and curve can be overcome then I think the split level will provide less complex and probably more satisfying operation

[john dew]

Ah, the 24 hour timetable - that is a happy thing indeed! I should very much like to have one for my layouts (indeed, actually a 7 day timetable, with a separate Saturday and Sunday service, with excursions on the Saturdays, commuter trains on the weekdays and so forth). Myriad are the joys of TrainController!

 

Indeed ......All that can be done.

[jamespetts]

In relation to Traincontroller blocks - I know that Traincontroller does not keep every train's entire route already traversed reserved until it has completed its schedule. If each of the points are in separate blocks, which is necessary for good operation in any event, then presumably Traincontroller will release each point when it is no longer occupied?

 

In relation to locomotive spurs and deciding which version to use - part of that decision will be based on the relative merits of locomotive spurs and run-around loops. The advantages and disadvantages of each are quite complex, so it might be a long time before I make a final decision, especially as the plan is to work on the N gauge layout on the lower level first (although precisely the sequence may end up depending on things that are not fully predictable, such as availability of necessary track components for each).

 

As to the split level version - it is parts of the lower level access routes and the whole of the lower level reversing loop that would be covered. It should be possible to access the lower parts of these fairly easily, but the clearance to the higher level would be very tight to keep the gradient to a minimum.

 

As to gradient haulage - this is a somewhat challenging business from what I understand. I will need to be able to have 4-6-0s haul 12 carriages up the gradient. Indeed, for station shunting work, I will need an 0-6-0T station pilot to be able to haul 12 carriages up the gradient. I have calculated that a 1.1% gradient will be needed, but it might be a little more than this if it transpires that 70mm is insufficient clearance taking into account the thickness of the baseboard. From what I have found so far, I strongly suspect that this would be a problem. It is a problem that could potentially be alleviated by using magnetic adhesion (such as in the DCC Concepts PowerBase model), but this comes with its own disadvantages: track has to be laid on steel on top of the cork and locomotives must be fitted with magnets to the underside of their chassis. These strong permanent magnets would interact with any permanent magnets used for uncoupling, so all uncoupling magnets would have to be electromagnets, increasing the complexity of the wiring considerably, and adding a significant amount of woodwork, as these electromagnets all need holes cut in the baseboard and are quite expensive (circa £20 each). The flat version, of course, has its own wiring complexities in the form of the turntable, so it is not a simple decision by any means.

 

What I might well do is conduct some gradient tests, but I do not yet have 12 OO gauge carriages to test with.

 

In any event, thank you very much again for all of your detailed feedback. It is much appreciated.

[john dew]

In relation to Traincontroller blocks - I know that Traincontroller does not keep every train's entire route already traversed reserved until it has completed its schedule. If each of the points are in separate blocks, which is necessary for good operation in any event, then presumably Traincontroller will release each point when it is no longer occupied?

 

 

It is generally accepted that turnouts should not be included in blocks. Herr Freiwald is pretty adamant about this.........there  is a fairly recent thread on the RR&Co forum. Including turnouts in each associated storage block definitely would not work.

 

A schedule consists of blocks and routes ( in essence the turnouts connecting those blocks)

 

The schedule from the station to Storage 2 will have the ladder as a single route between Block 2 and the preceding block ... Up Main ?. As I said it would need testing but I think I am right......but I think there may be workarounds with indicators possibly associated with miniscule blocks between the turnouts

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts in that regard: I had not intended to have the turnouts inside the blocks comprising the storage yard roads: rather, I intended them to be their own blocks, which I believe, from an electrical point of view at least, is recommended in any event. In principle, this ought to mean that it is possible for the software to detect when a train has cleared the last turnout in the storage yard ladder, although I do not know whether this is how it would work in practice, as I have not used Traincontroller in this way on my automation test layout.

 

I have made some slight optimisations to the design of the fiddle yards in the flat version:

 

 

 

The improvements are a slight improvement of spacing/clearances in the LSWR/upper locomotive spurs by a slight rearrangement of the pointwork, and an additional crossover in the longer roads of the fiddle yards to allow all but the longest of trains in one additional fiddle yard road to take a mire direct exit route, slightly reducing the number of possible conflicts.

 

I have been giving consideration to the question of the flat versus the split level storage yard design. Although there is no need for me to make any final decision on the point for quite a while, I am increasingly coming to think that the flat version is likely to be preferable. This is partly because the latest version of the split level design actually obviates some of the advantages of the basic version of this design (which was used in earlier versions): these changes were introduced to increase the number of long storage yard roads, as the previous version had an inadequate number of long roads in the upper/LSWR section.

 

This newer design, however, means that there are a set of storage yard roads before the reversing loop and another set of storage yard roads after the reversing loop. Thus, trains could not wait for a free storage yard road on the reversing loop, as they would block the exit of the pre-loop storage yard roads. Furthermore, trains exiting the pre-loop storage yard roads would conflict with any train entering the upper storage yards unless one of the lower storage yard roads were free to allow through passage of the departing train.

 

These problems would not exist with the lower (LBSCR) storage yards - but these would be less intensively used in any event.

 

The flat version would at least be easier to construct and maintain, and would obviate all gradient haulage problems. One thing that I do intend to do at some point is to test locomotives with long loads of carriages on the flat on the MRC test tracks to see whether they can haul a sensible number of carriages (12) without magnetic assistance. If they can do this on the flat, then this would militate further against the split level design, as a flat design would allow me to dispense with all of the complexities of magnetic adhesion (including the inability to use any permanent magnet uncouplers anywhere, and the consequent complex wiring needed for electromagnet uncouplers).

 

However, I recall a comment made above to the effect that the split level version would be more satisfying to operate - in light of the above, it would very much help me to have a little more detail about why it would be more satisfying to operate (especially given the constraints of the modified design described above).

[jamespetts]

I have revised the design a little more to make the station throat more efficient and sensible, especially as regards access to platforms 4 and 5 (the middle platforms which connect to trains from either route).

 

 

Now, a train can enter platform 5 and leave platform 4 at the same time, or enter platform 4 and leave platform 5 on the LBSCR line at the same time, neither of which would have been possible before.

 

I have also added a pilot siding on the LSWR side as, with the removal of some connecting track near platform 5 in earlier versions, there was not much space for the pilot engine to stand. The revised design should also reduce conflicts when using the carriage sidings and the relief line/headshunt.

[john dew]

Hi James

 

If you have not already done so you may want to read the section in the manual regarding the Despatcher Window. It starts about Page 140 and covers the relationship between blocks and routes. Page 151 makes it clear thar all turnouts between two blocks constitute a route. All the turnouts in a route are locked until the train has fully entered the second block. Hence my concern about the ladder.

 

 

However on Page 151 it also explains how you can insert mini blocks on the diagonal which would be perfect for the ladder (the miniscule blocks I mentioned in an earlier post). This would involve inserting small 2-3" sections of isolated track with a dedicated power supply and contact indicator (CI)  between turnouts on the ladder. You wouldnt need to separate each turnout with these blocks, probably 3 would be sufficient. This would significantly improve operating flexibility.

 

Assume the sidings on the ladder are numbered  from the bottom 1 thru 13 and each set up as a  block .Once a train destined for block 13 has cleared the mini block between say block 9 and 10 then the routes to blocks 1-8 are released. A loco could enter/exit any block between 1 and 8 before the train on the preceding schedule had completely entered block 13. Obviously you would need resistive whee sets on the last car......but I think you will need this anyway. ( N.B. I reversed the numbering system previously used for clarity)

 

I would encourage you to set up the layout, or at least parts of the layout, in TC. You could test some of these theories in the simulator and we could even exchange files. *.yrrg is an acceptable RMWeb format. Advance work like this will save an enormous amount of time when it comes to physically laying track.

 

Regarding turnouts.....yes they should be electrically isolated. Because they have their own dedicated power supply they can be connected to indicators which can be used to display occupancy or position. Some people, who I respect, do this. Most dont. I dont.  It really is not good practice to include them in blocks

 

HTH

 

John

 

PS dont be too concerned about my comments about the split level providing more operational satisfaction.......I did include some significant caveats......I will try and explain my thought process later.

[jamespetts]

John - thank you: this is most helpful.  In relation to the small sections of tracks between turnouts on the ladder - I am a little concerned that this might interfere with the geometary and spacing. Do you know whether it is possible to acheive the same effect using the block detection mechanism for the isolated turnouts as contact indicators for a mini-block as described, or does this have to be separate from the turnouts again? If the latter, could the extra piece of track be avoided by using IR sensors as contact indicators?

 

In any event, I shall be most interested in your operational thought process. Thank you again for your feedback so far.

[jamespetts]

I have undertaken some more minor optimisations to the design, mainly of the main station throat area, with the intention of making the avoidance of conflicting movements easier.

 

I have moved some crossovers and added others to allow for trains going from the down main line to reach platforms 1/2 at the same time as a light engine is travelling in either direction between the engine sheds and platforms 3, 4 or 5.

 

I have also moved the pilot siding to be next to platform 1 to reduce conflicting movements, allowing carriages to be shunted from the carriage sidings into the headshunt without interfering at all with movements into platforms 3, 4 and 5.

 

The revised layout is here:

 

 

I have also been trying to work out how many people that I could comfortably fit into the shed for an operating session should I want to have a manual operating session with some fellow model railway enthusiasts instead of running the layout entirely automatically.

 

On an assumption of a minimum person to person distance of 1,200mm and a minimum person to object distance of 500mm (700mm would probably also work), 6 people can comfortably fit into the shed with the layout boards constructed:

 

 

A 7th would be possible, but only if everyone is content to have a lesser (circa 700mm) personal space.

 

However, 6 operators would allow one sitting at the computer on the workbench/desk to work the semi-automated fiddle yards, two working the signals in the station throat area from electrical lever frames and three driving (generally, one for each mainline and one for the station pilot(s)).

 

I will have to look into how well that mimic lever frames actually work in conjunction with Loconet accessories.

[jamespetts]

A rough calculation based on the frequencies from the 1938 Southern Railway timetable (which is not quite right as this is after the Portsmouth direct electrification, but it is the closest that I can find at present) suggests an average passenger train frequency of fractionally more than 7tph each way on the LSWR lines and fractionally more than 5tph each way on the LBSCR lines (or 14tph and 10tph in both directions).

 

This would give an average 4 minute headway on the LSWR lines and a 6 minute headway on the LBSCR lines. The measured distance on the SCARM diagram between the exit of one of the central fiddle yard roads ad the back of platform 3 is 12,994.21mm, equating to 987.56m in 1:76. If we round that up to 1km, and imagine the train to be travelling at an average scale speed of 32km/h (20mph), that would suggest a transit time of 1 minute 52 seconds (1/32nd of an hour), which we can round up to 2 minutes. Supposing that another train needs to leave platform 2 as soon as the train in has cleared the exit to the fiddle yards and supposing that it takes the train 1 of the 2 minutes to do that, the train in platform 2 would depart at T minus 1 minute and the first train would arrive in platform 3 in T minus 2 minutes.The carriages in platform 3 would then have to be shunted into the carriage sidings and the locomotive removed to the engine shed, although the train would have to wait some time in the platform before being ready for this, and these operations would not have to be done at a specific time.

 

This does not include excursions, parcels or locomotive coal trains, although the latter two would run at quiet times when the frequency is lower than the above in any event, and excursions are intended to be squeezed into schedules where they can fit.

 

On the face of it, it appears as though this level of operation ought to be possible with the flat design, although this is only a very approximate calculation at this stage.

 

I am fairly keen to have a good idea of which design to pursue quite soon, as the decorator has nearly finished with the shed and I shall need to communicate any changes in design to the people building the baseboards so that I can get an accurate idea of how many supports that I will need installed on the wall, the installation of which is the task immediately following the decorating work.

 

I am currently minded to opt for the flat design unless I deduce or am made aware of a good reason that the split level design would be better overall. This is because:

 

1. earlier experience with the automation test layout shows that automation is probably reliable enough to allow for this sort of operational complexity in the fiddle yards;
2. there is real uncertainty as to whether the locomotives could haul long trains up gradients and this is difficult for me to test in advance;
3. the flat design allows better access to the window;
4. the flat design allows easier access to the ends of the fiddle/storage yards;
5. the flat design is likely to be less expensive;
6. the latest split level design does not (as explained above) avoid conflicts in the way that it was designed to do so, and the earlier version that did had insufficient capacity;
7. the locomotive changing in the fiddle/storage yards will allow for more operating variety; and
8. the above analysis suggests that the capacity of the junctions in the fiddle yard should be sufficient for the service that I wish to operate.

Any feedback on any of this (especially if it is apparent that I have missed or misunderstood something important) would be most welcome.

Edited November 13, 2018 by jamespetts

[TonyMay]

I think you're trying to cram too much into this.

 

Regarding the 6 operators, do you have 5 friends who are interested in enough to play trains with you?  What if operator 1 needs a wee?  Does everyone have to leave the shed in order for him to go to the bathroom?

 

Some of the trackwork could be tidied up a little bit to provide more flow.

 

Dropping the second main line would free up lots of space, a straightforward double track terminus should be possible in this space without having to cram in as much track as possible into every corner.

['CHARD]

I think you're trying to cram too much into this.

 

Regarding the 6 operators, do you have 5 friends who are interested in enough to play trains with you?  What if operator 1 needs a wee?  Does everyone have to leave the shed in order for him to go to the bathroom?

 

Some of the trackwork could be tidied up a little bit to provide more flow.

 

Dropping the second main line would free up lots of space, a straightforward double track terminus should be possible in this space without having to cram in as much track as possible into every corner.

 

Discussed at length, here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131434-main-line-terminus-in-oo/

[jamespetts]

Tony - thank you for your thoughts.

 

In relation to operations: the principal idea, as set out earlier in this now somewhat long thread, is for the layout to be automated. However, it might be fun to be able to operate it manually, too, if there are enough people from the model railway club of which I am a member who would find it interesting and who are free at the same time, and I wish to be able to plan for that contingency properly before construction commences so that I do not later find that there are people who would find operating this manually enjoyable and are free but the layout is not suitable for this sort of operation.

 

As to the number of lines and amount of things generally - is your concern practical or aesthetic? If practical, it would very much help to have more detail as to specifically what problems that you envisage, as I have spent some time analysing in detail how the layout will be operated and trying to make sure that it can be done effectively. If it is aesthetic, then that is likely just to be a difference in preferences: I know that some people very much enjoy a sparser layout with a high proportion of scenery, but what I am after for this layout is something more operationally intensive, as that is what I find especially interesting.

 

In relation to tidying up the trackwork, can you be more specific? It is somewhat challenging to fit that which is necessary to operation into this space using standard Peco trackwork (especially being constrained to Bullhead track so far available or expected to be available shortly in the scenic areas), but if you can think of a way of improving the layout, do let me know.

 

As to Chard's reference to the other thread - that was discussing an earlier idea for a a layout to occupy this space, which I rejected in favour of this somewhat smaller design on account of this design having fewer potential practical problems and not requiring multiple levels, thus allowing a separate N gauge layout set in a different era to fit underneath, allowing for more variety and enabling me to model railways that I remember when I was a nipper (the N gauge layout) at the same time as modelling railways at a time when they were the predominant form of inland transport (this layout).

 

There was some quite troubling behaviour by some members of this forum on that thread for reasons which remain obscure: people had made some quite vague suggestions to the effect that the layout was too large and/or complex, on which I had requested more detail so that I could understand precisely what the practical difficulties would be; some people helpfully provided further detail, on the basis of which detail I modified the design (and some of which contributed to the decision to switch to this alternative design), while others became increasingly aggressive and abusive apparently because I was not unquestioningly accepting what they had suggested without seeking further detail or pointing out that their claims as to what problems that there might be appeared to be contradicted by other sources.

 

I do not wish this thread to descend into that sort of nonsense, and happily so far it has not done so. Detailed practical feedback, or information as to how real railways operated or were designed in so far as is relevant to this design, is much appreciated, and I note that a number of replies on this thread (e.g. from John Dew, immediately above, but also some earlier replies) have been very helpful and constructive, for which I am most grateful.

Edited November 13, 2018 by jamespetts

['CHARD]

Nicely reined-in, sir! 

[john dew]

John - thank you: this is most helpful.  In relation to the small sections of tracks between turnouts on the ladder - I am a little concerned that this might interfere with the geometary and spacing. Do you know whether it is possible to acheive the same effect using the block detection mechanism for the isolated turnouts as contact indicators for a mini-block as described, or does this have to be separate from the turnouts again? If the latter, could the extra piece of track be avoided by using IR sensors as contact indicators?

 

In any event, I shall be most interested in your operational thought process. Thank you again for your feedback so far.

 

Hi James

 

My apologies........I wrote this on Saturday but omitted to press . I guess I was too interested in Engand just losing to the All Backs followed by Canada winning the first game of the repecharge to claim the last berth in the 2019 World Cup!

 

Thank you for your comments above.....glad to be of help.

 

The answer to your question is yes. In the TC switchboard window set up a mini block at the base of a turnout with a dedicated occupancy detector. Set up the mini block in the normal way using the turnout occupancy detector as the block CI. Do nothing to the physical track. TC "will not know"!

 

When any part of the physical turnout is occupied, the block on the switchboard will show pink (or the colour you have selected). The turnout will not change colour. 

 

Let us assume the sidings are numbered 1-13 (this time from bottom to top) and that the turnout between block 6 and 7 has a mini block at its base. Once a train/loco destined for say block 12 has physically cleared the mini block TC will release both it and the preceding route allowing schedules to start for any blocks between 1 and 5. Trains will have to have resistive wheel sets on the last car or you will need to build in an adequate safety delay. Nevertheless this will save a a lot of time......I am thinking particularly of reliefd locos moving to the sidings to coupe with existing trains stabled there.  

 

An added benefit: you will be able to use the mini block CIs as triggers for the flagmen you will have to set up in the siding blocks to allow relief locos to couple with trains stabled in the block. This will improve the stopping accuracy as the Time and Distance calculation will be shortened.

 

I should have suggested it this earlier.....I suspect I was too obsessed with convincing you not to put turnouts in blocks

 

Regards

 

John

 

NB There are a number of other instances where TC "not knowing" what is happening physically can be used to advantage.

 

 

[jamespetts]

Excellent - that is very helpful: thank you. That should make it even easier to be able to get the requisite number of trains in the time slots as necessary.

[TonyMay]

Have you thought about N gauge- it should give you enough space.

[johndon]

Have you thought about N gauge- it should give you enough space.

 

The OP is doing that as well: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131548-main-line-through-station-in-n/

[jamespetts]

I had considered N gauge in some detail - the position is that there is insufficient ready to run rolling stock to depict a main line location in the pre-war era in N gauge. I am planning an additional N gauge layout, as John points out, at a lower level, which is set in the 1980s, and for which there is ample rolling stock available.

 

As to the reference to "enough space" - there is, of course, enough space for the specific track plan shown here in the space available. This track plan, in turn, gives enough space for realistic length trains of ~12 carriages, 8 platforms, two engine sheds with coaling stages and turntables and two main lines (albeit short sections of them near the station) with extensive fiddle yards.

 

I know that it would be ideal to have more space for scenery around this area, but that does not mean that there is not enough space to fit this layout in this space - unless you are aware of some specific practical problems and/or significant issues with the realism of the layout that I am not? If so, it would be very helpful if you could set these out in detail so that I can consider them analytically.

[jamespetts]

I have made some minor revisions to the design after consultation with the person who is going to be building the baseboards so as to accommodate the depth of the twin slot rails on the walls of the shed which will support this layout.

 

Here is the track plan as modified:

 

[jamespetts]

Whilst still awaiting the flooring to be laid in my shed and the for the baseboards to be constructed, I have not spent a great deal of time working on this of late, but I have been able to do a little work on the background to the fictional location in which this layout is to be set (in its Southern incarnation, at least).

 

I attach two diagrams, both schematic, approximate and not to scale. The first shows the principal railway lines in the relevant area as they really existed at the time:

 

 

The second shows the imaginary version of reality in which the layout is set, with the station to be modelled shown in red:

 

 

The colours on the diagrams show the main lines: green for the Bournemouth/Weymouth line, blue for the Portsmouth direct, red for the west of England line and brown for the Brighton mainline.

 

One conundrum to which this gives rise which has troubled me for some time is whether the Schools class locomotive should feature on Waterloo to Bournehampton express trains. I anticipate the response from many citing what is often termed "rule no. 1" and that I can run anything that I like, but what I like depends, in my case, on what is maximally plausible, and that is what I am trying to discern here.

 

In reality, the Schools class locomotives were used largely in the eastern section (not shown), but a smaller batch of them were used on the Brighton mainline displacing the King Arthur class between 1930 and 1933, when the Brighton line was electrified. They were then moved to the Portsmouth direct line, where they worked until that line was electrified in 1937, whereupon they moved to the Bournemouth expresses. The eastern section locomotives continued on their original duties more or less. Wherever they worked, they were successful.

 

This layout is set in 1935, after the Brighton electrification, in an imaginary world in which there is no Portsmouth and therefore no Portsmouth direct line. In one permutation of this alternative reality, one might imagine the Schools class locomotives hauling Waterloo to Bournahampton expresses after 1933. However, would they have displaced the King Arthurs? I imagine Lord Nelsons and King Arthurs hauling the principal expresses to Bournehampton, Poole and Weymouth; but would three different classes of locomotives have been used on effectively one diagram (or two if one counts the "Bournehampton Belle")?

 

Some information as to the motive power on the Bournemouth trains between 1937 and 1939 might assist in understanding this; were the King Arthurs still used on any of the main expresses? How did the management choose between the Arthurs, Nelsons and Schools for a given service if all three were used? I understand that the Nelsons were insufficient in number to cover all of the services (some being used on eastern section boat trains), which is why the Arthurs continued to be used.

 

Any constructive thoughts on this matter would be appreciated.

Edited January 6, 2019 by jamespetts

[jamespetts]

According to the Rail UK website, quite a number of King Arthur class locomotives were stabled at Bournemouth as late as 1948, so perhaps all three were used at once?

[Zomboid]

In your universe the Meon Valley line would quite probably have developed into the major route that it was intended to become, and Waterloo - Alton - Bournehampton would quite possibly be the main route. A schools class on that route would be credible, more so than via Basingstoke.

[Sarcodelic]

Although they deal with operations in the 1950s rather than the 1930s Parts 1 and 3 of Southern Region Operating History, by T. S. Bradshaw and published by Xpress Publishing, might be of interest. Here are some examples for sale:

https://www.booklaw.co.uk/shop/index.php?id_product=2886&controller=product

 

 

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22896001058&searchurl=tn%3DSouthern%2BRegion%2BOperating%2BHistory%252C%26sortby%3D17&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title2

 

Other vendors are available.

[jamespetts]

Interesting - thank you both for those suggestions.