imt

I apologise for seemingly having hi-jacked this thread.  Thank you Compound2632 and ejstubbs for your fascinating posts.  I must go and visit Embsay and ride on the Embsay and Bolton Abbey Railway.  I find that this web site gives access to advice and interesting information on a huge number of topics.  Thank you again.

That is some really nice looking pointwork.  I hadn't seen a tandem 3 way on a main running line before - but that is just my huge inexperience I expect.  I assume that the loop beside the signal box is exchange sidings for a quarry or similar.  If had been designing it I would probably have put another point in the main line with a double slip on the siding/head shunt in front of the signal box. The 3-way pull  for the quarry exchange sidings at the other end  is interesting, as is the exit signal.   The quarry exchange sidings look as if they have been pushed in to a confined space.  It looks as if there is a another tandem three way at the far end of the goods yard as well? A really fascinating little station which could make a nice model and presumably not be too big.

I think this is what you were looking for?  The cover for Rail Magazine issue 814.

I like the plan, and the comment about Inverness rang bells with me.  I tried that, and got a long way with it BUT plenty of people said what I am about to say to you, and in the end I agreed.  Very nice, how many operators are there going to be, are there really going to be simultaneous movements?  How is your wiring and electronics design, can you make slow and stop circuits so you can drive one set out and let the incoming set look after itself? Could you really use all that track?

I wonder about P1.  It can only serve the anti-clockwise loop and despite its run round facilities (and I agree some variation of movements is entertaining) seems a little lost. Stock could be pulled out and propelled into P2/3 by a pilot, blocking the anti-clockwise circuit whilst you did that of course. BUT the more easily used upper part of the station feeds to this lower less usable part.

You will be dependent upon maintaining a balance between the two halves Drawing/propelling by a pilot will be a feature of this layout unless you are using a lot of EMUs/DMUs.

Can I suggest you should think about whether you want a dumb-bell.  There is some good advice about not having curved fiddle yards.  You could remove P1 and remove the dumb-bell and (if there is space of course) put a standard fiddle yard on the end of the first part of the curve making an L shape.

Two three-ways and a single slip - that's beautiful :-)

Isn't it beautiful! I think I'm in love. What is even better is that it looks to me as if it is two different types of 3-way turnout. The furthest one looks like a tandem, whereas the nearest looks like a three throw! Exquisite .........

Any book by CJF is worth looking at.  BUT as has been said before, most plans are for track units that are no longer available - so you need to re-do them in your chosen scale/track type.  Also his inclines are too heavy for many modern locos with long trains.

You do need to get your hands on a track design package.  SCARM which shows up in these pages has some good reviews and is also free.  AnyRail is about £20 and is good but does not have all the features of SCARM.  It is unlikely that any design by somebody else is going to fit what you want, but they do provide excellent starting points. CJFs plans are "railwaylike" in most cases and provide a good starting point. Playing with some designs yourself will help you visualise what you are aiming for.

Unless Grandad is good on electrics too, when you have decided on the layout you may want to ask some more advice about how to wire it up to best effect.  This is NOT complicated - just best to get right lest something or other gets burnt out.

Zomboid is right.  You say he has some locos already, please carefully check the boxes to see if they are DCC (usually in blue on the box) or not.  He may already have a controller of some sort?

Some quick checks and simple advice may avoid disappointments later.

Sorry - Kevin got there first.

That plan from the Peco Track Plans book differs from the real Bredon in a number of ways.  The worst of which IMO is that the arrangement at the station throat at the right hand side doesn't flow anything like as well as the original.  The treatment at the left hand end is much more awkward than the original as well.

 

............

Thanks for posting that detail.  I add below one of my Dad's and my layouts - not because its good (though we had great fun with it) but as another thought for Mrs Mallard to look at (if she hasn't gone away by now!). I have tried to put the old tatty paper sketch into a readable form.  It was 6'6" by 3'9" and lived under a small double bed.

I would reinforce the point ejstubbs makes.  If you do something like this you need to hacksaw some bits of rail.  Both our diagrams use AnyRail and the gaps are obvious.  Rail cutting is not difficult, but as for me 65 years ago, it's something for an adult to do not for a child.

The idea of the run round area is so a train order can be reversed to go back to the station, the engine running round the carriages.  There was a bit of handling involved as the loco and tender had to be picked up to turn round.  These days you can use a Peco LocoLift. As I remember it, it was a maximum of 2 coaches plus loco and another train could pass a passenger train in the station using the loop.  We had a couple of "industries" to add interest (and a reason for some different wagons). With my lovely "Duchess" for expresses and a couple of tank engines it was hours of fun.

The "backscene" was cardboard with two joins so it could lay flat but would stand up in use.  Crude but effective.  Apart from the buildings there was no hard scenery - but we enjoyed it just the same.  These days I would have tried for a head shunt for the goods yard - but I didn't miss it then.

The "fiddle area" was extended out by a foot or so on books when in use (on the floor of course!) so a train could be made up ready for running. As ejstubbs says - a larger fiddle yard would add to the utility.

For more ideas get hold of the Peco Setrack Planbook - my third edition includes the Bredon plan.

I have mixed Setrack and Streamline Code 100 on my layouts.  They both link together fine, the fixed nature of the straights and curves helps me plan layouts and the Streamline Code 100 points look fine, give a closer centre to centre spacing and are good enough for me anyway.   The spacing of tight curves could become problematical if you use flexi track so I only use Setrack for "hidden" bits and never less than 3rd radius. I have not found a problem with putting them at 50 mm spacing.  You can "butcher" Streamline points to make the spacing closer or build complex point configurations if you wish.  I'm too clumsy to try it, but there are lots who have on this site - sorry cannot remember who/where.

Fairly obviously, as both ends are the same (on most stock anyway) you only need to take ONE coupling hook off.  You then need to marshal your trains all in one direction - i.e coupling hooks all to left or right, your choice I think!) or it won't work(?).  BUT you will have to have a coupling hook on one end of your loco too I would think?  Logic problem for you to think through.

Many modellers use specialist couplers, but they can be expensive.  What you can do is keep the old couplers (like you with one hook out) for the centres of rakes of carriages for example - you then put the expensive auto-couplers on the loco and ends of the rakes.  Again you need to take care in marshalling if you don't have enough sidings/cassettes to hold your rakes..

I would suggest the upper one is the way to go.  I don't see the problem.  The branch would have a Working Timetable which would schedule goods and passenger services so they wouldn't clash.  In this case if they did you could, for example receive the goods into the run round and set it back out of the way into the head shunt whilst a passenger engine ran round its train. As the Traffic Superintendent of the line you would have to specifically cause the problem to arise - which you may want to do for fun.

Were you to want to use the lower one you would need a trap point on the end of the head shunt so as to prevent any stray goods wagon running onto the passenger line. Best simply not to connect the two.

Chris got there first and more authoritatively!

I have stuck with the simplest, i.e. Bachmann/Hornby tension locks and Peco sprung uncoupling ramps, but wouldn't describe myself as happy with the way they operate - both unwanted & failed uncouplings are common.  I'm hoping I can improve things a bit without making a major change, as I really don't want to start playing around with the more complicated options.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

There is an awful lot to be said for KISS (keep it simple stupid) BUT I have heard of ways of improving tension lock coupling/uncoupling by using steel paper staples affixed horizontally to the bottoms of the downcomers on the tension lock hooks and using a magnet to cause the hook to lift.  I THINK I saw that somebody had produced metal replacement hooks for that system too.  As usual I warn that this is only my recollection and that I haven't tried it myself.

Jon got there first!  I cannot make the link work................

Are there lots of different (Hornby) manufacturing periods and is older stuff better or worse.

 

Also some poor "integral plastic couplings have appeared on one coach and one "Brake" wagon - just starting to engage with E bay for this (been using it for years) so I'm happy to learn by reselling where needed at least its cheaper than using loads of petrol but a few tips would help!

 

BFN

Yes there has been a gradual improvement in most 00 gauge models over the years, though some of the old ones were expensive and good.  You DO need to take care when buying things in from (say) E-bay where you don't get to handle and inspect the goods.

You have hit on a particular bugbear with couplings.  They have gone through many iterations, and buying older stock almost inevitably means "hacking" the couplings - which I do a lot of.  I have chosen to use NEM pocketed Kadees for their auto-uncouplng.  I like them - but there are always many other opinions.

Fixing an NEM pocket is not difficult - you just need some good CA glue - but you need to get various supplies.  Beware some older Bachmann stock claims to be NEM (and NEM couplings fit) but they are NOT the right height and hence need changing.

I use a variety of NEM boxes bought from Bachmann and Symoba.  Symoba provide an excellent system for complete replacement, but it is expensive.  I have used it on favourite models. I just use the NEM boxes not the whole gubbins.  As a cost saver, where I have "rakes" of things (wagons of a type, coaching sets) I tend to leave the central vehicles with the old couplings (which work fine) and just NEM/Kadee the end vehicles.

If you want more PM me and I answer specific questions as best I can.