Ian_H

Hi John,

You mentioned the turntable and I know from a few posts back that its a peco turntable that you have converted to EM but can you provide info on how you will operate this. I can see from one of your photographs what appears to be a stepper motor and drive belt with some other bits & bats ,but it would be very interesting to know how it will index each of the bays unless its by "Mk 1 eyeball" .

 Would I be better getting some sleepers that are pre cut?

 

Yes, Most definitely!

Sounds like a plan, do you gap both sides?

You gap between the rails, most put the gap just inside the nearest rail to hide it.

Perhaps he's asking about double sided copper clad sleepers in which case I would recommend to gap both the top and bottom side of the sleeper otherwise any fixings that may go through the sleeper could cause a short circuit.!

Hi Gordon,

So sorry to hear about your Mum, my thoughts are with you.

Ian

I know, I know, you've jacked ET to take up Subbuteo .... subbuteo cricket at that. Come on Gordon we've all missed you and we're all in suspenders (mine's lime green and frilly, I'd have preferred black) wondering what you've done.

Don't tell me, it's a roundy-round? a single line branch? a change of scale? oh no, you've abandoned ET in favour of slot car racing?

Nice to have you back Gordon.

I would love to have a set, to use as reference for building my own but only if nobody else wants them, they're EM right?

Hi John,

I'm sorry I have no information on the turntable at Leeds but having seen from your photographs that you have a place for one I was just interested to know your thoughts on the matter. Having said that, I agree with Leander that the metalsmith 50ft diameter turntable may offer a solution but, unfortunately I haven't seen the turntable in the flesh.

Hi John,

Nice to see the PWay gang have returned refreshed and ready to "get to it"! One question regarding the turntable, what size and type was it and do you have a supplier in mind (of course that's more than one question),

Regards

Ian

Hallo,

just seen this thread. October 1974 Railway Modeller has a plan Euston Minor with 7 platforms. It is actually a two track main, loco line to "Camden" and a track which dives under the main, however tweak the throat would allow all four lines to access all platforms. If you do not have a copy of the plan let me know and if you wish I could scan the side and send it to you via message as I'm sure reproduction here would infringe copyright

 

es grüßt

pc

I'd be grateful to receive a copy, I do have Railway Modeller from '74 but not the October issue for some reason.

Thanks

Ian

If the layout was going to use a straight fiddle yard then extra sidings for whatever use the owner wants could be laid in front of the fiddle yard extending the viewing area to the full length of the layout.

A bit like The Laird's "Bradfield Gloucester Square", always worth a look http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/28198-bradfield-gloucester-square-br-1962-ish/

There are a number of nice very good videos "The Bradfield Chronicles" from say page 21 on wards.

I bet at times you wish you'd kept hold of Gloucester Square but Leeds City is coming along and I'm sure if will all be worth it in the end. I'm certainly looking forward the train movements at Leeds, presently I keep going back to BGS to get my fix, what a superb model that was!

Keep it up John

best regards

Ian

Good to have you back Gordon ......................... had some horrible thoughts, thought you may have abandoned ET and got stuck at the tip, perhaps under all the timber, phew!  Should have known that you'd be playing out with your small balls

All the best

Ian

Ps Nice pond, if I had a pond like that in my garden the Heron would have all the fish in next to no time.

I did suggest a shotgun, but animal lover Mrs S said no....

gun tower/emplacements?? perhaps a bit overkill but that's the idea isn't it?

There has been some discussion on the Eastwood Town thread about this, see post 2577 from Martin Wynne where he explains about the overlap of the abutments by 4 ~5ft.

So who's going to build the .., hang on, what are we going to call it, The Eastwood Town Wiki, The E.T. Wiki, Gordons Wiki or how about Gordons ET Wiki!

I seem to remember, way back in the archives, that there was a discussion about Gordons ET-TV along the lines of the New Yankee Workshop.

Keep up the good work Gordon

Regrettably, and as Spock might put it, the signal logic part isn't logical.  All proceed aspects have to be controlled by the signal(s) in advance otherwise they will not sequence correctly.  Sorry for the interruption Gordon.

Hi Mike,

I wasn't advocating the use for signalling (of which I know almost nothing) but more for the detection of trains in the storage/fiddle yard, although I do think Richard's circuit is pretty goodand if not quite correct could be improved upon;-)

Ah, and the printer is still in the hall waiting to go to the tip.  Is it easy to spot the bits that could be useful?

Hi Gordon,

The part look something like this

There will be two or three maybe more. Generally they are in the paper path, used to detect the presence of paper and the position when it gets to the printing position, there maybe one for detecting paper exit/jam. Also could be used to check that covers are closed although usually they use micro switches for that. You may also want to recover some other parts, LEDs, the LCD display may come in handy later and also the motors, one of them will most definitely be a stepper motor that can also be controlled by a Picaxe for exact position, I'm thinking here for a turntable, think you mentioned a while back that you may want a different turntable to the present one that you have. Take note a Picaxe can also control servos for semaphore signals but if your going down that track and considering your space requirement, you may aswell use servos for the turnout and sell your turtles on Ebay, just saying;-)

Hi Gordon,

Just going back to your idea for train detection using the IRDOT-1 sensors, you mention that you have nine roads so would require nine sensors but since you plan on double stacking then presumably you will require more sensors and as you say they are quite expensive. Home made sensors would be cheaper, unfortunately a couple of weeks ago you threw a printer away that had the very sensors that could have been used ... too late now   but there are circuits to build that would do the very thing for you at a much better price and they are relatively simple in construction.

A short while ago I came across some YouTube videos made by Richard W of Everard Junction fame. One of Richards videos deals with Train Detection and Automatic Signalling using a Picaxe micochip. In his video tutorial Richard explains how to program the Picaxe using a software where the user simply designs the operating software using flow charts (if this happens do that else wait this length of time and the other) as opposed to programming languages such as 'C'. Richard explanation is very laid back and I think very very easy to follow, its almost Lego!

I know you're not ready for the system now but if there's nothing on the TV tonight, is there ever, and you have 50mins to spare have a look:

Ian

Ah, I think I know the answer to this one: it's 44.67mm centres, so it's measured from the centre line of one track to the centre line of the other, so it's a separation envelope based on vehicle width, regardless of your track gauge (so long as your gauge is not more than 22.335mm!)

 

 

(Edit to smack myself - so long as your gauge is not more than 44.67mm you should be ok.)

"a separation envelope based on vehicle width" an excellent description!

Thanks

Ian

So are you saying that we have a 6' space in P4 and a 6'7" space in 00?

I can see the sense of this, same width of rolling stock just running on different gauges ... just require clarification!

Thanks

Ian

Hi Guys

I think I'm having a blond moment (no disrespect intended to any blonds out there) but the numbers are confusing me, specifically the 44.67mm. I understand that this includes the 6' spacing (24mm) but where does the other 20.67mm (5' 2") come from? Perhaps it's the 4'8½" gauge + rail head, but if that's true then the 44.67 would be fine for P4 but not 00 with the 16.5mm reduced gauge which would be is 2.33mm (7") narrower!

Best regards

Ian

a tip run

Noooooooo .... don't do it!

Ian

Hi Guys, I haven't forgotten you, just struggling again with gradient construction.  A straightforward up and down is no problem at all, but when you have a 40-50' run of 1:100 gradient all sorts of things come into play.  In the old days, I would set the baseboard level and then use risers working from a datum level of the baseboard frame.  It was quite easy to cut risers at various lengths, but when they were all in place, running a straight edge down the track bed showed it was a series of rise and falls over the risers themselves.  I tried everything possible, but once you had to move boards about across a room, the levels would change.  Of course we're only talking a few mm here and there, but nevertheless the holy grail of a flat bed was hard to achieve.

 

Using a spirit level is a very simple answer but that doesn't work either as you can create compound errors over a 60' run. Starting from one point around a continuous loop of 64' it is possible to have everything level as you work around the room, only to find as you get back to the beginning you have a rise or fall of 10-20mm between the trackbed ends and then have to fudge the join with an incline or decline.

 

Now technology has come into play and I've tried using a laser level and instead of constructing the gradient from the baseboard frame up to the trackbed, I thought I'd try reversing the process and establishing a flat trackbed and then working down from that datum using a laser level set up on a tripod.  That was fine until I realised just moving around the room could impact the laser itself.  This is a purpose build room and you would think with five huge RSJ's it would be solid as a rock, but not so.  I weigh around 13.5 stone and I can see the deflection on the laser as I move about.

 

The problem with any multilayer design is that you have various levels from the same trackbed as it winds around itself crossing over and under the same gradient over it's 50' run. You have to have a minimum of 73mm clearance to allow a loco, cork trackbed and the height of rail between two levels.  I have the space to do this and have the engineering background to do it, but somehow can't find a simple way to achieve it.  I will get there and once I get one section done it will all be plain sailing.

 

The key challenges for me are the gradient should be 1:100 or greater.  Box ticked.

 

Minimum clearance to be 73mm.  Box ticked.

 

The trackbed should be in one plane and not a series of up and downs as it crosses risers along the slope.  Getting there.

 

Starting at one point you must be able to run 60' plus around the room on a flat and level trackbed and find when you get back to the beginning the ends of the boards match up perfectly.  Nearly there....

 

I have every confidence I will get there as there will be a lightbulb moment very soon, but I've now had five attempts at getting it right over 25% of the layout and am still falling short of my goals.

 

Right now, I'm surrounded by drawings and spreadsheets show the various dimensions required to achieve the holy grail. I'm off to golf tomorrow and the break will do me good, but if anyone has any ideas how to meet these goals, then I'm all ears.

 

Simple up and down theories work fine on straight or short gradients.  This one is proving far more difficult with continual curves, the length of gradient and the shallow angle of 1:100.

Hi Gordon,

I don’t know if it’s a stupid idea but how about cutting lengths of 2.4m ply at the required gradient and fitting them under the rail bed, if 1:100, then the ply would be zero (datum) at one end and 24mm greater at the 2.4m mark. Next piece of ply would be 24mm at one end and 48mm at the other end. On straight sections then both sides of the rail bed would be identical but on a curve it will get a little tricky. Perhaps okay on simple curves, you will have the circumference/length on the inside and outside of the curve but on transitions I’m not too sure, may have to think on that a bit.

Edit - Opps, You could just follow Martins lead which had it all planned out thirty years ago ... also, to Martin,why are you drinking Scotch while building an Irish railway?;-)

Hi Jeremy,

Your track work is looking superb ............... just a quick question, if I may, about the handbuilt track on the template, do you leave the template in place and simply ballast on top of it or do you have a means of replacing the template before ballasting?

Regards