imt

Thank you so much for all of that.  As you say I expect others will argue with it, but it does help the ignorant like me understand better!

You're perfectly correct, traps, my bad. I'm learning, slowly...

"I don't think you need a trap from the platform onto the main line near d or at the end of the platform. Platform end maybe not, as (g) should be trapped, but close to (d) for me yes, to protect the through goods route?"

I think this is where I should bow out - I am not an expert in these matters, just someone who has read the experts on here.  HOWEVER in my (non-expert) opinion, IF the line is mineral only except for passenger trains to platform 3, then the ONLY traps you need are to protect the passenger line and those would be on d-f just before the point to platform 3 and on g near the crossover/slip or whatever on f.  The rest would be under the control of shunters or maybe even private.

I not sure whether this is the right thread for this - maybe http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/35-permanent-way-signalling-infrastructure/ would be better as I am not sure how many of the engineers watch this one.  Here's a quick starter for 10.

Firstly they ain't catch points - I think you mean traps.  Catches catch run away stock at the bottom of slopes.

Secondly the purpose of a trap is to protect passenger movements from run away goods stock - forgot to put the brakes on? - or movements which might clash with passenger traffic.  So many of your suggestions might be less than necessary.

Proper answers from the experts might require some explanation of HOW this layout is intended to operate.  Is platform 3 a dead end.  Why do you need a l/h point off the passenger line d-h to g?  The line from g (which crosses the main line)  would need to have a trap to protect the main line.  I don't think you need a trap from the platform onto the main line near d or at the end of the platform. Since the line c-e goes nowhere near the main/passenger line then no trap is needed.  IF d-f is a main (passenger) line then the traps a-f and b-f are needed.  Possibly not if this is a goods only line?

So the experts out there will help - but give a bit more detail to help them first.

Apparently not; not sure what happened there.

 Never mind - I thought about it and then I enjoyed reading it with reference to http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/120680-regional-terminus/

Doing code 55 n gauge peco track behind the scenes on my new layout, can anyone advise what the correct, robust and reliable mechanism for ensuring alignment and electrical connectivity across the baseboard joins. Boards themselves are fitted with alignment dowels.

 

Layout is a home layout so not for exhibition but splits into two sections with a number of tracks in the fiddleyard going across the joint.

Try this thread: www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/123756-baseboard-joints-copper-clad-sleepers/

+1 for Swansea Victoria, a brilliant place to model with 2 platforms, a scissors, and plenty going on.  And it's in South Wales; what's not to like...

 

Like a few other people, my first objection to the OP's original plan was the lack of direct access to the suburban platforms for incoming trains, unless there was a facing crossover further out and 2 way working on the outgoing road.  The problem of persuading the punters to walk the length of a main line platform to access their suburban train can be overcome by providing a separate suburban entrance on the road side of the place, bit like Riverside at Cardiff (General).  But, if this is a regional terminus presumably serving a fair size town with suburbs for suburban traffic, where are the goods facilities, where is the parcels depot, and where are the carriage sidings?  All these things are steam age essentials, and the first two need direct up and down access.  And we haven't even discussed engine sheds and how we are going to turn tender locos yet.

 

Staying in Swansea, might be worth the OP considering a look at High Street for inspiration, 4 platforms but 2 could be shortened for suburban trains; all of the above facilities though admittedly the loco shed is a little way out, and in a fairly compressed valley side site hemmed in by a main road on one side and a steep drop to the river on the other, so a model based on or inspired by it doesn't spread out like Cheltenham St James; it almost looks as if it's on baseboards from the map.  There's even a sneaky little road diving down behind a wall at the back for through running...

 

Places like Bath Spa don't really count as they were though stations and a train, having arrived, only had to drop off and pick up before it was on it's way again, with no running around or shunting, and no crossover between up and down lines, just move on down the line and make way for the next one.  A terminus is much more involved than that, which is why they are more fun to operate.

Is this in the right thread?

........

 I just need to find the correct info about wiring up code 75 electrofrog turnouts and slips etc.

 Thank you.

Try Google or just go here http://www.brian-lambert.co.uk/Electrical.html

It won't go round 1st radius and might go round 2nd (it should tell you on the box).  It'll probably look silly on any radius short of 3ft (which you would have to use flexi-track for).

If you have them enjoy them, just use the largest radius you can.  If you haven't bought one yet, think hard as to whether you want one in a limited space limited curve layout.

I am familiar with the two 'dynamic loops' on the Borders railway - one from Gorebridge up Borthwick Bank, and the other around Stow (including a station, although not every service stops there). They allow north/south services to pass at full speed, although there has been criticism. I know the Edinburgh bound services sometimes have to stop outside Gorebridge to wait for the Tweedbank train to enter the double track section. Also, I regularly hear trains passing non-stop (when they should be stopping), presumably because they need to make up time. The single track sections seem to cause problems getting the timetable back on track after a delay.

Thank you, I'll take a closer look at that line because there seems to be quite a bit of material - presumably because its new.  You have hit the nail on the head with single lines - any "significant" delay (and it begins to look like that delay time will vary from line to line, section to section) will (gradually?) create chaos.  The Swiss, who seem to have a lot of single line sections, seem to manage OK (frequent visitor) but there are times when you wait for passing trains.  They also don't aim for 100mph trains, just a timetable that works and interlinks with all other forms of transport.

Thanks for your response - I end up having to edit things too so I wouldn't worry.  Your comments are in italics below:

Back in the 60s/70s the rail imperative was generally based on retrenchment / singling / closure rather than expansion or service enhancement, so the situation wouldn't have arisen. 

However, so long as the installation had power points and colour light signalling, there is no reason why a dynamic loop could not be operated from a single box.

In my earlier thread I explained about my hypothetical railway branch - so I was really thinking about the late 60s/70s and the consequences of increased rathere than collapsing traffic (my own quiet never-never land!).  Useful to see that remote control of points etc would have been OK.  The Stationmaster had already reminded me that higher speed junction points would also help by reducing the need to slow trains approaching them. 

The number and spacing of signals has to exceed the maximum expected demand for pathways or timetabling becomes hedged about with conditions and any gain quickly disappears.

The one with which I am familiar, at Axminster, can theoretically hold three trains in each side but any need/ability to feed that many into and out of it via single line approaches seems extremely unlikely unless the adjacent conventional loops at Chard Jn. and Honiton were both out of action

This is how long is a piece of string of course, but I was looking to get some idea of how long such a "dynamic loop" would need to be to hold say 2 trains and keep them moving - 3 miles?

In practice, two in one direction and one in the other is the usual maximum, though two each way may have occurred once or twice.

Both roads are signalled bi-directionally, too, but beyond one terminating train a day from Exeter, it doesn't do much other than saving passengers boarding early morning up trains having to use the footbridge when there are no down trains about.

I had thought about bi-directional working, but thought that such signalling would be a very expensive luxury.

A dynamic loop with a station in the middle means a train can leave on time and get up to speed without a direct knock on from an opposing train running a few minutes adrift. All it means is the trains cross nearer the end of the loop rather than at the station. It does rely on the meets being timed at the station and not at the junctions though or all you've really got is a short length of double track line!

Thanks for that insight.  As far as I can see much of this is about sensible timetabling as opposed to just some double track.  Getting the paths right and their crossings scheduled intelligently is important.  One of the problems on the Perth-Inverness is extended waiting in stations for passing trains - what you are suggesting above would have quite an impact since there is extended passing time available, so if one is late/early it can to some extent be absorbed by the stretch of double line.

A dynamic loop can include a station. An example is on the West Midlands Cross City line which runs south from Lichfield through New Street to Redditch. After the junction at Barnt Green the line was single through Alvechurch to Redditch. This restricted trains to 2 per hour on this section. Recently a dynamic loop was built from just north of Alvechuch and then run south for about 2 miles. Alvechurch station gained another platform, overbridge and lifts as required these days. The result is that train frequency has been raised to 3 per hour.

 

Brian

Thanks for that, its interesting to see that they are (still?) being implemented and the effect on traffic that they have.  The original line from Inverness to Dingwall was double, then singled, then doubled again (repeat as nauseam) between Clachnaharry and Clunes which included the now closed Lentran station.  Its currently single and a horrible bottleneck especially with the revival of rail in this part of Scotland: to be another of those much discussed "dynamic loops" now.  The line between Blair and Dalwhinnie stations (something like 25 miles) is dual whilst much around it is single.  I note many of those pressing for improvements ask for doubling of lines and where that is not possible "dynamic loops" - so I am still a little confused as to which is what and why.

A dynamic loop is designed in such a way that, on a single line, crossing trains should pass each other without needing to stop.  

 

So in fact a Dynamic Loop would be as well NOT to have a station in it since that could (potentially) foul up the timings.  Obviously this is down to good timetable planning, but avoidance would be better? 

Mike, I think most scanners come with that sort of software bundled, they may not be perfect but it would be a good starting point.

Please, I don't want to divert this into a technical discussion on OCR.  Can I just say that if going that way you need a good quality printer/scanner with a sheet feeder and some idea of what kind of output would be best for your editing needs.  Doing this yourself by hand one sheet at a time will be time consuming and error prone. Best of all get a professional to do it for you - it'll take no time and be done properly.  Like all things, why learn about a new technology which you have no further need for when pressed, get a specialist to do it.

The book still sits in type printed form with the discs it was on no longer available so it's re-write off the printed word = lots of work (100,000 words!).

 

This may not be the time or place BUT if that is the only problem then it is easily resolvable. 

1) take several photocopies for security - please put one copy in a fire safe it is a MOST PRECIOUS object and I am not bullshitting or fawning.  It is irreplaceable.

2) get the document scanned into text format - easily done by a good amateur or a professional service. It can be put into a format that you can easily work with very quickly.

3) tidy it up ONCE and then set about getting it published.  Face the fact that it can/will never be finished.  You will always find something, remember something else or learn about a new aspect.  Get issue 1 out and then worry about errata, revisions, extensions, volume 2 etc etc.

4) You CAN self publish and put it on the Internet - others will be better able to advise on that.

PLEASE, please don't leave it lying there.  I had to drag my father-in-law's memoirs off him and do something similar, but it was sadly too late for revisions then.

Oh dear I must have appeared rude.  I was really trying to be helpful ................ sorry!

Try posting it in the "Electrics (non-DCC)" forum??

Oh! I see you have!

Cheers my friend...much appreciate the info and the trouble you have taken to message me.....

 

I have started a new thread called Cambrian Street....the link should be here (below)......in fact your message is quite timely as I have just begun wiring up and indeed have movement as of last night albeit a short distance....

 

Take a look at the new thread....

 

Regards 

Bob

Bob,

I'm a bit slow - its called old age I think.  I have of course now looked at your layout thread.  You seem to be blessed (cursed?) with plenty of points and so on.  I was quite alarmed when I first looked. I am pleased to hear that you are committing to certain configuration(s) and getting things working - I always find that important to keep enthusiasm up. You have a massive job on your hands.  It must be nice to have that space, but I think it has caused you to try to fill it without enough understanding of the hows and whys of railways and railway modelling.  I do wish you good fortune with it and will watch your progress.

Cheers Grovenor

.....I am not 'techno savie' about these matters and whilst every bit of information from the kind guys on here is very much appreciated and taken onboard sometimes I get a bt confused and disheartened to carry on with the existing layout.....it is the track plan of Penzance and Birmingham Moor Street that makes me think I will follow it through....however I am always open and appreciative of comments and guidance...Regards Bob

Hello Bob,

Only just seen this thread: because of the last posting it came up as unread for me.

I DO HOPE that you have not wandered away disheartened, frustrated and confused.  Sorry, but I don't know you so I cannot do anything but ask questions - they may help you think about where you are going.

Is this your first layout?  If it is please excuse me when I say it is awfully complicated for a first try.  Why not do something simpler FIRST get the feel of things and then do this.  I tried too complex, almost gave up, got reinspired, did something small and I'm now on to something bigger with a lot of experience and mistakes behind me.

If its not your first layout, why are you sticking to DC?  If you want something this complex it is screaming out for DCC.  Maybe don't build this until you have DCCed your current layout and got some locos working on that first.  THEN you will have made the mistakes and be ready for something else.

DCCing things is NOT complex as a first go.  You will have loads of people telling you that you need to wire points like this and you musn't do that etc. etc.  First time round I didn't do anything special and I even had insulfrog points and it all worked after a fashion.  I was able to improve that, but you don't NEED over complicated wiring of points or whatever.  If this is to be an exhibition layout then you do, if it's for you then you don't - well at least in my experience you don't.

I think your design is great, but it will be expensive to build and to provide adequate amounts of stock.  Ther are things that could be improved in the design (like platform 5) but RULE 1 should apply - its your layout do it your way.

If you want help thinking about less complex and DCC there are plenty of people on here to help.  Just be aware that the perfectionists will have you cornering the copper market!

........................... How would one "bend" the ruler once the first straight section is over ?

Hence the suggestion of a piece of string! It goes round corners and can be measured against rulers too!

.......

 

More to the matter at hand, What size passenger trains called there?

 

regards

Anything going to Inverness or beyond down the "Branch" - so trains from Edinburgh and Glasgow certainly, which in my time (early 60's) were standard size sort of trains. I didn't travel to Aberdeen that way so I don't know - but I thought most passenger work was via Perth and Dundee. I don't think many Inverness "expresses" (there's a joke) stopped at Stanley - but there were plenty of long trains - including at appropriate times sleepers and Motorail (which certainly didn't stop at Stanley).  I have a passenger timetable for 1965/6 which does not have Stanley in as a station, but that might not mean much.  My WTTs are after the closure date (1967??).  Early 60's most Inverness local traffic was round by Nairn, Forres and Granton to Aviemore - again I didn't travel much beyond there, and my memory fails.  Most fast trains left from Aberdeen and those travelling from Inverness were encouraged to a highland rail excursion - much to my father's annoyance.

I am sure there are better informed pasengers/railwaymen around to help more.

.......

 

I find that Brian Lambert's web site is another reliable source for this kind of more detailed information than Peco themselves provide.

Absolutely agree and it seems a bit pointless (oh dear) to repeat it all. On my small layout I CHOOSE to ignore all the advice and use Streamline 100 straight out of the box with no problems at all.  This does not mean the advice is not good (its very good) but I decided against the complications.  My layout is small, fixed, non-transportable and not exhibition quality - if you want the best possible basis for your electrics then read Brian's stuff - indeed it might be good to read it anyway, you never know YOU might decide you want to follow some of the advice (or even all of it if you want your layout to be moveable and/or to go to exhibitions).

The only Peco Electrofrog points which work as-is out of the box are the plain LH and RH ones: polarity switches are mandatory for slips and 3-way points.

Maybe true of Peco Code 75/85 (I wouldn't know) but certainly not true of Streamline 100 as they don't supply ELECTROFROG versions, they only supply insulfrog versions.