stevie_ruc

So I have priced up the signals

 

Absolute aspects. £1150

Cr signals £560

 

Wow. Think I’ll be scouting EBay !!!

Ok guys. You get what you pays for I guess.

Simon. Who would you recommend I start buying my collection of signals from?

Are those MBA wagons behind the 66?

Folks need your thoughts please on my Yard/industry to the right of my layout. I have found Northenden Cement terminal and thought it would make a good subject. ..?

 

I have nearly finished the main baseboards and should make a start on the fiddle yards this weekend with an eye to start laying track next week

Simon you have gone above and beyond yet again. Really appreciate it. Tell your boss thanks also! Great that ur boss is an enthusiast too!

Hi Stevie,

 

A new version of the plan with some positioning notes in pink:

 

Oranmore v3.pdf

 

The only things I've changed is to add a second route from OE201, after Ians comments and talking to my boss (also a model railway enthusiast), it would would be sensible to have a route from OE201 up to OE105 to allow locos to go off to the left without having to get to the station first. I've also changed the normal lie of 308 and 306 points to show the real life layout a bit better and to make the Position 1 Route Indicators seem sensible!

 

Simon

 

Simon that is above and beyond yet again. Really appreciate it great that your boss is an enthusiast too!

The trap should stand open (i.e set to derail anything which passes over it) until such time as a route is set through it at which stage the points will close and establish a wheel path. This happens irrespective of whether or not there is anything in the loop.

Ah yes I see now. Well I thing I’ll have a bash at making them out of some Peco points.

 

Thanks Stevie

And I've got my professional hat on too which is why I said what I did .  Anymore more hats to chuck in the ring?  

 

(And Simon has of course given us, and explained, the obvious answer why he has drawn it that, perfectly correct way.)

 

 

 

What track will you be using?  If it's Streamline they do an item they describe as a catch point but it is only a single tongue and would be unsuitable for that location in a modern track layout as the trap should be double tongue.  In order to get something which looks right you could either build a dummy trap by adding a couple of switch rails (point blades) permanently set to allow a train through or you could use an ordinary Peco point and strip parts out of it.  The cheapest option would be to go for a dummy or to get something looking a good bit better, and part working, use a Peco SL84 single tongue trap/catch point and add a second dummy blade to it.

I’ll be using Peco code 75. Im assuming in real life , that when the siding is occupied the catch/trap points are thrown ?

So the next thing I will need help with is the physical placement of the signals. The ground ones are obvious enough. But I would be guessing at the rest. With so much effort being put in thus far I’d like to have them at least in the right place...

 

Also I’ve been researching the trap,points i need. Can anyone point me in the right direction of the real thing that would be in use around the north east of England at the present day?

 

cheers. 

Q1/2. It is correct to the real life track plan (see #47), I just haven't changed the track plan to suit on the drawing, as one the software is quite timing consuming to use (particularly if editing track layout!), but also the only thing that I would change is the lie of 308 points

 

Q3 I was going by the diagram Stevie gave me, he didnt specify the Main lines as bi-directional, and I didn't wish to change his specification too much. So you'll have to ask him his intentions.

 

 

Yes, I'm not sure on the double slip numbering, I couldn't find a nice example of numbering quickly, so I just went by Paul's numbering in post #47, which was slightly confusing!

 

Simon

 

Q3 indeed the main lines are not bi-directional just the freight loops.

 

Thanks again Simon for the updated drawing. I have made a start with the baseboards and I'm pretty happy with the way the track is planned. Unless there is anything glaringly obvious now, I'll stick with what I have. Thanks agin to you all for showing such interest and understanding to a complete novice at signalling. 

 

Currently working on the benchwork which I hope to have completed by the weekend! I have 7 month old twins so not sure which weekend exactly!

Lots of interesting comments, if i may just add 2 more:

- Regardless of whether the refuelling line on the plan is for loco fuelling, tankers delivering fuel or both, regardless of lack of space to move from there to the shed without going onto the running line, would it be OK to be accessed directly from a main line (or loop) like that?  A wrongly set set of points could lead to disaster!

- I can't see any reason for the crossover between UM and DM in the station other that for a train to arrive on the UM, terminate in Platform 1 and then reverse.  Should there be a signal at the left hand end of Platform 1 to facilitate this?

Could the line be protected by catch points? Or should I just bin the fuelling yard ?

Stevie,

Have you got a DCC system yet? There are far more independent signalling interface systems based on digitrax Loco net than NCE which is why I went Digitrax. That said, it is possible to run the signalling on a separate Loconet system to the DCC system driving the trains. Look up JMRI if you want freeware for the computer control system, but be prepared for a lot of work yourself. JMRI will also drive trains from a computer, but that (I think) needs a loconet based system. Alternatively MERG do kits for home build DCC and bus system signalling interfaces - cheaper than buying but you need to be confident in electronics.

Paul.

Hi Paul I have the NCE system already and used it with JMRI on a previous system. So I am able to reuse the Switch8 point controllers etc etc... I’m fairly proficient with JMRI but I can see I will have a lot of work to do to make this all work together.

 

What in want to do is have a good mix of passenger and freight running through the station. I imagine that the TMD is used as a refueling and stabling point, for minor repairs to locos operating in the local area. Haven’t decided if it will be freightliner or colas rail etc... the engineers yard is there so I can have a bit of fun shunting wagons around before the train leaves for the day to do the works etc... to fill the space on the right hand side below the station I plan a small industry where something g is loaded into some type of wagon and then the sidings used to stack the empty and full wagons before being taken away.

 

I have a good collection of class 66s 70s and a few turbo stars and a couple of HSTs

 

I suppose the main thing I want from this layout is operational interest. I want it to be as realistic as possible. I love the idea of the internal signalling system in the TMD so really want to keep that aspect.

 

My idea for the fielding point was a loco would come of the Mai. With tankers and fill up the tanks. The headhunt would be used as the actual place where the locos are fuelled. I will adjust the length of the tack to enable me to get two lcocs on ther so I can still get a loco out of the depot while one is being fuelled. As I said I am open to layout changes here and there as suggested by the folks on here.

I had no clue that the signaling aspect would I treat me as much as it had. I thought There would be 3 or 4 signals and that would be it. I printed Simons plan out on A3 paper and have it above the station. My father was round and I showed him progress on the baseboards and whe he noticed the plan he was amazed to say the least.

 

My thanks to you and Simon and the other members on here for taking the time out to help me along.

Hi Clive.Thanks for ur suggestions. Im really restricted with space don't you think? Any ideas would be welcomed...

 

Stevie

This is the layout I was basing mine on....http://www.rmweb.co....305-dallam-tmd/

Hi,

 

Paul, yes you are quite correct, I'm not sure exactly why I missed that.

 

Yes, the problem with models is the space compression, and also, I was in my professional mind-set of 'get the freight out of the way quickly', hence all the main signals, a lot of which could be replaced by ground / shunts and as I didn't know the all the movement requirements (which a lot of people don't think about when asking for signalling, which I can understand), I try to guess and add stuff to accommodate!

 

But please tell me it would be right in the real world!

 

 

Ah, I missed that bit of the spec! (don't kill me Paul! ), I hadn't realised that the passenger loop was a goods loop!

 

Clive, I was working on more modern practices, modern TMD and depots have internal signalling systems (see Reading or Three Bridges for instance), which are now mainly for staff protection reasons and so you don't tie yourself up in notes. You are right in that a lot of depots still use Hand Signals, but some sheds (Aylesbury I know is one, as is Wembley Chiltern) have shunt signals reading in and out of shed roads. 

 

Also, an internal signalling system in a depot adds a new dimension to operating a depot.

Simon

I love the idea of a operate singling susie,t for the TMD area. Will definitely add operational interest....and another switch Panel.

 

Do you have such a thing as a key for the symbols?

 

I'm planning to run all this with a NCE system and computer control. Though now I see that tremendous digram I'm wondering could I use it as a mimc panel too?

I did suggest look at some prototype locations, that is how I designed my shed layouts.

 

Hi Clive.Thanks for ur suggestions. Im really restricted with space don't you think? Any ideas would be welcomed...

 

Stevie

1) It's Christmas - lots of lights?

2) I'd read the fuelling depot on his plan to be the storage and tanker road, and the headshunt to be refuelling and headshunt - there would seem to be space.  Wouldn't that work?  There are problems with his TMD anyway so maybe some suggestions would help him improve it.

Yes refuelling and head-shunt done on the same road and the other was for the tankers to come in. But as always open to suggestions.

 

Cheers

Ah, the trap point trap! You’ve missed one Simon. ;-) On your diagram, 306 points are passenger (exit from the loop platform) so another trap point is needed opposite 306B.

Having criticised Simon, I need to say what a good job he has done in drawing this up for you. I know the package that is used for signalling plans and it is not the quickest to use. Simon knows what I do for the day job, and may well have been told that one of my frequent questions is “What is the layout required to do? What train movements does it need to support?”

The distances on this layout are much shorter than apparent on the pdf signal plan and so the signalling suggested will look too much on the model. I think quite a bit can be taken out which will make it look more realistic (and cheaper!).

Stevie, would you be open to a minor layout change which I think might improve both the signalling and the way the layout works?

I have printed out the plan in bits and once I have scribbled all over it I will try to put more detail on my summary above.

Paul.

Yes Paul always open to new ideas . Hope it doesn't give Simon much work if he would be kind enough to implement changes at this stage?

Hi Stevie,

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

ORANMORE.pdf

 

The main point from my view is that you would have a trap point at the ends of the 'Goods Loop' lines in real life (shown using red / green track), whether you want to add those in is up to you.

 

If you have any questions, just ask!

 

Simon

 

Oh my goodness is all I can say. That looks amazing. Ill get it printed out and have it adorn the layout. I appreciate that there has been a lot of work went it to it Simon.Ill def add the trap points think they will add to the realism of the layout. As for questions ill have plenty as I go along.

 

Thanks 

Hi, is there any update to progress on your interesting layout

 

Thanks

I have literally just got 3 loco lifts arrived in the post today. Great minds and all that. Fuddle yard- could be a new thing.

That looks good, I like the new "industry" sidings (steel came to mind when I looked, but could easily be anything) and the TMD.  The P/Way yard looks ideal for posing things like tampers, an MPV, etc.  Just make sure there's enough room for a loco to get between the depot buildings and the fuel spur without having to go onto the running lines!  

 

Experience with my own fiddle yard says you might fins a couple of crossovers mid-way along useful.  Most of my sidings can hold between one and 3 2-car DMUs, but being end to end one tended to block in another, so crossovers half way down some of the longer sidings allow things in and out easier.  That empty space at the bottom might be good for a few short sidings too, for locos, DMUs, etc.

 

If I were you I'd keep the programming track completely separate from the layout rather than have it connected to the fiddle yard, to prevent embarrassing mistakes that I've never made such as accidentally reprogramming multiple decoders at the same time...  I do quite like your fiddle yard design, it is unusual and presents certain limitations on trains not being able to pass on their way in and out at the same time if using certain roads, but gives more flexibility with modern double ended trains than the traditional separate "up" and "down" yards.

I like the idea of steel industry to, or concrete... the P/Way yard is exactly as you described. Ill definitely  put crossovers between loops 2 and 3 in the fuddle yard, great idea thanks. most of my trains will be double ended with there odd loco hauled train. will make for fun time shuffling in the fiddle yard !

 

Cheers

Well, you've thought about the greater things so we should move onto the nitty gritty.

 

I am concerned about clearances - both track and buildings.  You need to look at the separation in the loop below the main station - it looks too narrow.  It may be my failing old eyesight but it looks narrower than the gap for the main running lines.Your diddy signal box needs removing because firstly there is no clearance there and secondly this lot will be controlled by a remote signalling control centre by signallers who sit looking at screens all day.  By all means have a boarded up, lets all cry about the awful changes, ruined signal box somewhere - but it does need some clearance round it.

 

I would advise that you put a wall on the lower platform and simply use the third and fourth lines as a freight loop and run round.  It will make operating easier. See more below.  I am not sure what purpose the crossover from the bi-directional freight loop and the inner passenger line serves?  A connection does exist further round and this may complicate signalling.  Keep it if you see a need - but think about it.  I think you have taken the advice about having a freight loop BUT you still need to isolate it from passenger lines so you need a point into a sand drag off the freight loop above the refuelling depot.

 

Your loco sheds in the TMD are also impractical, locos need space around them - all around them in order to drop wheel sets get at all sides, etc.  So fewer lines in a larger shed?  You could just have one workshop and a couple of spurs for parking.  The same goes for your industry - not enough room for two lines in that apparently nice big shed - honest guv.  The contractors area needs 2 not three sidings, they need to get lorries and cranes in between to lift things on and off the stock, and maybe have a silo full of ballast over the track etc. etc.  An overhead crane for lifting things might make a good model here.  Less is more.

 

You still have some operational problems.  I am assuming that the diamond near the refuelling depot is a single slip, if it isn't it needs to be since otherwise the loop cannot access the inner track.  This planning software is all the same - you cannot see the differences between diamonds, single and double slips at this size.   I expect that the two in the fiddle yard are double slips.  Have you played with this on paper.  There is plenty of length and things can go in and come out the same end, but does this fit your vision of your operating timetable?

 

How do you intend to shunt the contractors sidings?  Which way is the train coming in, is the run round long enough.  Can you pull back far enough without fouling the points on the right hand end - I think you may have problems, but maybe you envision splitting up and building trains using the loop.  You can obviously build a train in the freight line and pull it into the loop to put the loco at the other end.  You could put a double slip at the right hand end under the station building to give a bit of extra head shunt there (and incidentally isolate the freight from the passenger lines - hardly necessary here since it's out of sight, but even so it is safer. Shunting for the industry will be much easier because it has the whole freight loop to serve as a head shunt.

 

For "Elfin Safety" I'd also put a right hand point by the refuelling point so the head shunt goes off at 45 degrees and the tanks can be neatly put in the middle of the triangle away from the flying trains.

 

Gosh I'd better let you think about some of that!  RULE 1 APPLIES this is just comment to help you think things through - do it the way YOU like

So I took on board your comments but don't see any real requirement to change the plan. You have reinforced a lot of things I had thought about while planning. The wall on the platform and the Double slip. You have obviously studied the plan in great detail which I really thank you for. I live in Northern Ireland so its Magazines and Youtube for me,as the only way to see the real thing.! Glad it has taken shape with help from the members on here. Will have to post updates as I go. I have the bases installed already and just need to put down the remaining baseboards. Incidentally the baseboard are sitting on Kitchen units, Good stable platform to work on plus all the storage you could want , I'm surprised more people don't use them

 

Incidentally I've scoured the internet for pictures of ballast wagons being loaded as you suggested for the engineers yard, do you know of anywhere I would see some?

 

Thanks again for taking time to come up with all your feedback.

 

Stevie

Hi Stevie,

 

I'm drawing up a signalling plan based on your new design, will hopefully have it ready this evening!

 

Simon

 

Thanks Simon I appreciate your time and effort on this. As you have problem read I received a lot of feed back to get to this point. Looking forward to see what you come up with.

 

Stevie

Following on from my last post, I agree with imt's ideas.  The lower of the two bay platforms could become the through line/freight line/loop, so you could get rid of the lower platform area, leaving you a bit more space for scenery - a modern station car park and footbridge to the platforms, maybe?  I'd probably also delete the spur parallel to the platforms and just have the sidings curving off to the freight yard, it gets rid of another straight piece of track on that board which makes everything look contrived, and also makes the curve flow better and look less obvious, especially if its a sharp one.

 

Ok folks made a few more changes, larger radius curves etc.

Big change was I removed the second station and introduced a larger fiddle yard. I intend to run full length trains, HST, Class 90's, Caledonian sleeper etc, so I need the long fiddle yard track length. I also have included a Small industry ( ideas please) in place of the contractors yard which I have moved adjacent to the station. TMD remains largely unchanged but I have a refuelling spur. I assume the TMD, Yard, and industry don't require Signalling? Feedback is always welcomed.

 

Thanks Stevie

I would suggest that you need to think about the operation of this railway you are building.  What traffic flow are there and where to/from.  You seem to have introduced a branch line in your last update, why?  What length do you want your trains to be and do they fit your fiddle yard?

 

Can I suggest that you probably have too many platforms and hence have a lot of track in a small space.  I can see the need for the through ones (obviously) and a bay platform could work for a shuttle to the other station.  What purposes do the other platforms have.  You might want/need them all, but do think about the purpose of things.  You might like to consider carriage/DMU sidings in the main station area.  You now have a nice release loop for locos to get to the TMD which means that you can stop trains to change locos etc.

 

If you want more space at your station throat you might like to consider having only half a platform showing.  This is a trick I have seen used successfully on other layouts.  Use the space on the yellow board as if it were part of the station, as this is clear of your fiddle yard, then (for example) half the train peeps out and the rest follows when it moves from right to left.  This might already be your idea for the bottom station.

 

You do need also to think about your fiddle yard.  How big are the trains to be, is it a ladder of points, a traverser some cassettes or what?  It already seems to me that your platforms are longer than the distance between the ends of the two curves.  This could seriously affect the way you can do things.  My advice is to tackle that whole area pretty quickly as part of your layout as a whole.  Fiddle yards are a pain but if you get them wrong then great disappointment ensues.  In the end you may need to sacrifice the second station to get the needed space.

 

I think your TMD is much improved.  I think the siding leading up to the 2 round things is for tankers?  Maybe it doesn't need to be that long? Do you have enough room for refuelling and for a loco to enter/leave the TMD (the right hand siding).  You may like to think around how the loco refuel/service etc. process might work in your TMD, and change things a bit to ensure you can make those movements without interfering with each other.

 

I do hope that was helpful.  It might seem negative in places but it isn't meant to be.  You have a nice space for a layout there and a pretty good plan.

 

Great advice there. I have thought of one or two of the things you have suggested... was hoping to leave scale drawing for the fiddle yard to the end but I can see now it should be part of the design process. Ill work on that tonight and take onboard all your suggestions.

 

Thanks again for your help. 

That looks an interesting plan, and I'll leave the actual signalling if it to those more experienced than I, but since you want accurate signalling I suspect you want accurate track layouts too, so hope you won't mind me suggesting:

 

- Access to the depot would be highly unlikely to be straight off the running line into the shed building, more likely a headshunt then setting back onto the depot lines for example (eg: rotate the depot plan 180 degrees)

 

- Likewise, that's quite a large yard, with no run-round facilities, so the only way in is either wrong line from the crossover by the loco depot, or by propelling in from the main line after passing through the station.  I suggest something like a loop between the station and where the loco shed currently is, which would serve as a loop for trains entering the yard, and somewhere to access the TMD from.  You could then move the facing crossover by the TMD to allow trains to access the loop as they leave the fiddle yard, and get rid of the trailing crossover.

The loop could also extend through/past the station, I'd say by converting the track that passes below the platforms (ie 5th from the top of the plan) to be a through line, and insert a left hand point where just before it joins the main line top left to continue the loop around to the TMD.  

 

I hope that makes sense!

 

Thanks a lot for your suggestions. I had wondered about that entry point. Ill take on board what you have said and revise accordingly!

 

Thanks again

 

Stevie

 

 

Edit:

 

I had a quick play with the layout and have come up with this....Hope its what your suggesting.

 

Stevie