JDW

On 05/01/2022 at 18:31, Mol_PMB said:

 

 

A farmer named A. Pitchfork...? 

I upset a few people parked in a narrow road on an infrequent bus route a few times by knocking on doors and making them move cars. Each time, they'd tell me I was too wide and shouldn't be there. And each time I pointed out that I was the same width as an ambulance, so if I couldn't get through, nor could an ambulance or fire engine should they need to call one... 

I'm still inclined to agree with the others above about a double track line. It looks like you have lots of space, and lots of storage for trains to form part of the 'dance', but I can't help thinking it would be more of a shuffle as each one takes its turn, one at a time, to move from one bit of the large layout to another, with potentially nothing happening anywhere else. You said again you want to watch a train go round and round, but there doesn't really seem to be a clear path for that, just a series of interlinked yards/staging areas - it reminds me more of something North American than British. If trains are just advancing from one yard to the next, then any moves between the bottom and left hand yards are going to be pretty uninteresting I'd have thought. Train sets off, turns 90 degrees, stops again. Or if trains will start and finish from the same yard, then it means they're spending part of each lap just passing through another yard. If it were me, I'd just have one set of sidings rather than one after the other, or at least space them out so there's something interesting happening between them. 

Again if it were me, and I had to design in a diamond crossing, I'd look at using one as part of a connection to/from the branch from a two-track main route through the station

I've been reading from the beginning and have to admit I'm not sure where you're going with this really. It seems a bit stuck somewhere between 'train set roundy-roundy' and 'model railway'. At the end of the day, of course, it has to please and satify you and no one else.

I presume each of the sets of loops is the 'three goods yards for each type of freight'? - but each one seems to have the main line running through the middle, and generally a yard would either be off to the side, or for modern traffic like the Cargowaggons or 'silver bullets' it'd more likely be to an industrial siding or complex than a railway goods yard. 

You've said you want movement and having things 'constantly running' but only have a single track main line all the way round, with lots of trains sat waiting, will mean one train does a lap, or moves between two places, then another, then another. Apart from the branch shuttle, there's not much potential for anything more. If you're wanting an air of 'secondary main line' you could still achieve that with, say, double track along the bottom and right hand side as far as the station, narrowing to single track beyond (to the left of) the station. 

Likewise, the station layout is neither particularly interesting nor realistic, but if it achieves your aims then that has to be the main consideration. With a few exceptions, it would be odd to have a platform on both sides of the same line. Normally a station such as yours would be laid out as either 

track - platform - track - track - platform - track

or 

platform - track - track - platform - track - track - platform

This kind of layout then gives more options for crossovers to allow trains on and off the branch line - though again, that's probably only really a consideration if you're after realistic operation or appearance.

On 06/01/2022 at 11:29, JohnR said:

I've just had my first, if not rip-off, at least a disappointment.

 

Bought a Triang-Hornby loco (nostalgia reasons, more than anything), described as "Serviced this class 37 runs like a new locomotive, smoothly and swiftly in both directions and at all speeds" - yet when I got it I had to adjust some loose wiring to the motor, and it runs very noisily, and only at the high end of the voltage range. I dont recall that when they were new (though that was 45 years ago). 

Clearly, you read that as "[Having been] serviced, this class 37 [now] runs like a new locomotive..." when what the seller meant was "[If fully] serviced, this [type of] class 37 [model] runs like a new locomotive..." 

Getting very off topic here but that's a good point about the difference between how things steer reversing versus forwards! Our tri-axle double-deckers didn't have rear steering on the third axle, which meant they weant through tyres fairly quickly. The tyre scrub on tight corners was noticeable! They also went through a lot of drive axles, because of the stress of the sideways load on them, so we almost always had one off service minus a drive axle waiting for one to come back from being refurbished, as there was only a limited pool of them. 

The 21-metre Mercedes-Benz CapaCity has an extended rear section with twin axles. Axle three is driven, and the fourth behind it is steered, but the driver can de-activate the steering to reduce the tailswing when pulling away from kerbs, for example. I've not seen an English-language video on it, but German YouTube channel BusTV and Norwegian channel Busmagasinet have both tested them.

1 hour ago, SamThomas said:

IIRC the first "bendies" were trialled in Sheffield & they had 3 x Mercs & 3 x Leylands (which soon fell by the wayside). They had to have special dispensation to run them.

They had three axels #1 -steering, #2 driving & the #3 on the trailer was a rear steer so they took up the same road space radius (more or less) as a standard bus.

 

Irrespective of legal requirements responsible operators would have trained their drivers with these vehicles.

I've heard more than one person try and explain that the steered rear axle "makes the back wheels follow the same path as the front ones" which would be a rather interesting concept!! I've yet to drive a rear-steer artic, though have a couple of longer-term plans for work that might see me get to have a go...! 

Surprisingly, in some situations artics can be more manoeuvrable than a 12-metre bus - given the choice, unless a route physically prevented it fitting, for ease of driving I'd have taken a Volvo artic over an Enviro500 (tri-axle, 12-metre 'decker, with a non-steered tag axle).

Just now, SamThomas said:

I'm pretty certain that you could drive an articulated bus on a standard PCV licence if the driving wheels were the rearmost set therefore pushing, but you needed an additional PCV test if the driving wheels were the centre ones which pushed & pulled, similar to a 12m coach with a luggage trailer in configeration.

 

Some weird old qualifications.

 

Many years ago if you passed your HGV test in a 3-axel ridgid that also qailified you to drive a "wagon & drag" with an A-Frame trailer but not an artic.

 

That may have been the case when the things were new-fangled foreign inventions, but last time I checked the rule was that regardless of where the engine (or driven wheels in the case of battery-electric, hydrogen or trolleybuses, many of which can be specified with two electric drive axles) is, the test for whether it is a trailer is "can the vehicle be uncoupled and operate separately". Whereas a HGV with semi-trailer or drawbar trailer can uncouple and the front part be driven in its own right in normal operation, a bendybus, even with motor and drive axle in the front section, could not be separated without the use of workshop facilities*.

*technically it could move around so long as items such as the fuel tank were also in the front section, but it couldn't in any meaningful sense be used or driven in such a state.

If you're reversing into a space, you're generally reversing into a much more controlled area, and one which you can look into before you start your manoeuvre. You're also usually turning, so can look through the side or rear window at the space you're going into. Reversing out means your view left and right into an area where there are vehicle and pedestrian movements is obstructed by the cars alongside, and you can't see in some cases until a large part of your car is already out into the roadway. It won't always work like that, but I think in most cases that would hold true.

I've also heard an argument that where its mandatory in workplace car parks, for example, it's also because you're more awake and alert at the start of your shift, and often in a rush to leave at the end, so the more taxing manoeuvre is at the start of the day when you arrive, and at the end you can drive out looking where you're going.

And yes, it's correct that you don't need a separate licence for an articulated bus. I'm sure I've said it here before, but I find it a strange irony that I can drive an 18.75-metre articulated bus (and can do it spectacularly well, if I do say so myself!), but can't drive a 12-metre coach with a luggage trailer, or even a car with a large trailer. Even more amusing, I could even tow an articulated bus with a recovery truck. But not a trailer with my car. (I believe I'm also right in saying that in countries where they are permitted, I could drive a 21-metre artic such as the Mercedes-Benz CapaCity) or a double-artic on the same licence, though there may be other training requirements for the latter, especially as many of the ones in Europe are trolleybuses)

6 minutes ago, JDW said:

As with many things where people look in from the outside and throw around lots of whys and hows and whats and other things with lots of exclamation marks, quite often it actually is the case that the experts whose job it is to assess, design and install such things have done the job they were trained for and are experienced at, and have come up with the best solution possible given the circumstances, situation and parameters presented to them. Of course, that doesn't stop everyone else knowing how to do any job better than someone trained and employed to do it.

Quoting myself, but I should have qualified that by adding that there is no harm is throwing ideas around, discussing alternatives, and why they might or couldn't be used instead.

9 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 It's easier to park driving in forwards.

Overall, I'd suggest it's easier to see to park by driving in forwards, not that it's easier to park forwards - though I do accept that in a sawtooth car park like that with spaces at 45 degrees, where driving in and reversing out is how it's designed to work, then parking forwards is a lot easier than in a 90-degree space!

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

In fact the more we talk about the more convinced I am that those monstrous bridges are, actually, the best solution to most of the crossings which actually have to be replaced!

As with many things where people look in from the outside and throw around lots of whys and hows and whats and other things with lots of exclamation marks, quite often it actually is the case that the experts whose job it is to assess, design and install such things have done the job they were trained for and are experienced at, and have come up with the best solution possible given the circumstances, situation and parameters presented to them. Of course, that doesn't stop everyone else knowing how to do any job better than someone trained and employed to do it.

I worked for a large, national bus operator for many years, and the number of people who knew how to run bus services better than we did was staggering. I could never work out why we only ever employed drivers who didn't know how to drive, schedulers who couldn't schedule, operations managers who couldn't operate bus services,... when there were so many better qualified, knowledgeable and experienced people outside the industry who knew what we really should have been doing...! 

I had initially wondered myself why ones such as the huge footbrige couldn't be earth banks, or at least disguised by them, but as others pointed out, often it's just not practical and things have to be how they are.

15 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Why do people design car parks in which it's impossible to park properly? Do them 45 degrees the other way, and you'd be reversing in instead of reversing out, which is much safer.

I started to nod in agreement, but then realised how bad some people are at reversing! 

On the signalling point, I do tend to signal quite often when there might not be an immediately obvious need, especially in locations where someone could appear and find the signal useful. On the other hand, there are times when it's pretty obviously superfluous and I don't bother - though often I still will out of habit anyway. I agree with some of the other comments above, in that when I'm driving a large vehicle I'd signal pretty much always, as there are blind spots which could be hiding someone close behind, whereas in a car I have a clear view all around.

I was on the A1 where it joins the M1 a few months back, and electronic signs for a few miles up to the convergance started showing 50, then 40, 30 and eventually 20 alongside an "Oncoming Vehicle" warning. I found it positively dangerous to slow down to 20 in lane one, as so many were blatantly ignoring it. On a few occasions, HGVs caught up with me and moved out to overtake still travelling at (I estimate) around 50.

I happened to be wearing a white shirt and driving a silver BMW saloon at the time. I found myself on multiple occasions opening the window and pointing up at each of the electronic signs, whereupon the lorry drivers rapidly gaining on me in lane 2 all suddenly decided they were going to slow down and move back in behind me. I'm not sure whether it's more worrying that they might not have observed the signs, or that they only slowed down because they assumed I might have been a police car, but either way the fact that pretty much every HGV and most other cars were ignoring them was worrying. Especially given the warning message. 

6 hours ago, Nick C said:

Just look at the PRM requirements for rail replacement buses for another example - according to discussions elsewhere on the Internet, the fact that it's a blanket 'all vehicles must comply' means that coaches, with toilets, can't be used - making it much more difficult for people with, for example, Chron's disease (not sure of the spelling...), to travel.

With apologies for going way off topic, for accuracy it's more the fact that most coaches are not wheelchair accessible plus the reqirement now that every rail replacement bus/coach must be "accessible" that means operators will send out accessible low floor buses instead. More and more coaches are gradually being retrofitted, to allow their use on such work, at a cost of around £20,000 to £30,000 per coach, and more and more new coaches  are being specified with lifts to allow their use. Even though the drivers, operators, and even those on the 'rail' end of rail replacement understand that in many locations, there isn't the space to actually deploy said lift.

(For wheelchair users, the experience of being hoisted up to head height can also be somewhat nerve-wracking if its an external (side-mounted) lift, as well as a cause of embarrassment as they are seen as 'casuing a fuss' or 'holding up the bus'. The same as with making crossings compatible, doing something that suits one person often makes it less good for someone else).

Going back a few posts to the discussion of how a user of a mobility scooter sees themselves, I'd suggest that most would be more likely to see themselves as a "pedestrian" using it as an 'aid' rather than as driving a "vehicle", and use the crossing accordingly. It might not be the right way, but I think there's a valid argument there. 

1 hour ago, thirty2a said:

@JDW this one? It’s a shorty they are funky things that clip together and can be mounted on kato chassis 

Yes, that's the one - I wondered if it were a fictional creation or prototypical. It looks about the size and capacity of a Parry People Mover but with twice as many doors for swallowing huge crowds of about a dozen and rapid boarding/alighting! 

15 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Cost of an unrestored industrial? About £10,000 to £20,000.

 

If it's about the ones in the scrapyard in Scotland, Thomas Muir's then you are wasting your time. Plenty have asked and they aren't for sale. They are now in a secure part of the yard with no access.

 

https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/thomas-muir-the-saved-the-forgotten-four/

 

Here they are on Google Maps.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Muir+Thomas+(Metals)+Ltd/@56.1196616,-3.1562804,55m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!1m2!2m1!1skirkcaldy+scrap+yard!3m5!1s0x4887b50634e9ad6b:0x7d9bad713d3bc3de!8m2!3d56.1204756!4d-3.1545339!15sChRraXJrY2FsZHkgc2NyYXAgeWFyZJIBCGp1bmt5YXJk

 

If you look on Street View you get this.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.1196079,-3.1564215,3a,75y,332.79h,91.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAD1AV1WYb1y0fvfS9XPFzA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAD1AV1WYb1y0fvfS9XPFzA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D240.97394%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

 

 

 

Jason

With apologies for going slightly off topic, I'd never heard of them or the place. I'm curious, is there a particular reason they are still there and haven't either been scrapped or sold, or why they won't sell them, or is it just the case that people have asked and just been told no?

Hi @thirty2a, I'm curious, what's the almost comically short white one with red ends towards the rear?

That pic shows what a difference the white skirt makes - it emphasises the 'pointiness' of the design so much better than black or other dark colours. Makes me wonder why the livery designers didn't do it, it highlights the sleekness and pointy front end rather than just the sloped top part, as per the original design, rather than making it look like just part of the underframe. 

The Merseyrail set looks fantastic, especially for someone who has never built anything like that before! I'm wondering if you did another whether it might be worth painting around the doors before applying the vinyls, then you could cut the vinyls to sit flat and bot have to try and touch in any unpainted edges. I'd be tempted to remove the rainstrips too, and either leave it without or add replacements from plastic strip on top of the vinyls, for a neater finish. But on the whole, it certainly looks the part, nice to see a rarely-modelled unit in an even more rarely-modelled livery. 

It looks to me like the grey has too much of a hint of brown, whereas it should be much closer to the white stripe below. I saw the Sprinter liveried 150/2 in Harburn Hobbies a few days back before I'd read this, and thought it looked odd, though my initial thought was that the dark blue was too dark rather than the beige, though it's obvious now I've read through here

It certainly looke better with the brickpaper. I think it looks a bit tall without a canopy attached, it could maybe be improved with a large advertising billboard (or enamel sign) on the gable end, and the chimneys covering in brick paper too. If you're not using the 'upstairs' part, the chimneys don't need to be as tall either. 

Just to add clarity to what I suggested above about a second platform and access to the station: Of course, if as suggested in the earlier plan there was a tunnel, access to the station platform between A and B could be via steps from a townscape above the tunnel. That part of it was just an alternative to the tunnel idea. 

I've drawn roughly on Kris' version from above to show what I mean. I've moved the tracks labelled A and B to the right by a few inches, with a platform between them as per RJD1977's idea. I've also suggested a second platform on the outer track, which gives the impression of a bigger station, which might or might not be what you want, but does at least give a plausible location for the station buildings (booking office etc) outside the oval (orange block), and allows for a footbridge (orange line) across to the island allowing plausible access. I considered a platform to the left of A and one between B and C, but that would be overkill I think, and look cluttered. 

I've also suggested moving the crossover between inner and outer ovals ('up' and 'down' lines) to the right at the bottom of the plan. In hindsight the one at the top of the plan could also move to the right hand side of the level crossing. That would make it quite easy for a train to arrive in the platform at A or B and the loco run around to the other end, allowing the train to depart in the opposite direction. E.g. train arrives anticlockwise in A, loco uncouples, runs forwards, reverses via B to the bottom crossover, reverses again onto the back of its train, then departs via the crossover back onto the clockwise circuit.

The right hand end as in the drawn plans and your first photo from the side. The same end shown by your last photo.

That crescent shaped area which has nothing in it bar the little siding with the two wagons on - looking at your last photo I'd move the points and crossovers for the 'inner' pair of curves (the ones where the grey platform is in RJS1977's drawing) as far towards the 'outer' pair of curves as you can to minimise the wasted space. In other words, bring the 'inner' pair of curves as close to the 'outer' pair as you can. Does that make any more sense?