simon b

1 hour ago, Covkid said:

Technically, it doesn't have to.  Although the 25kV installation at Oxford might be better in one hit, AFAIK the MKC trains would / could be terminating in the bay platforms. So had Oxford-Bletchley been equipped for electric trains, the service would have been much "cleaner".  Not only that a fleet of 12 years old, 100 mph capable EMUs suitable for operating the service are currently sat in Worksop yard growing mushrooms. 

 

The lack of keenness to make the EWR a showcase new service, particular from the "city of learning" is a big disappointment  

But it's still useless as you can run through electric freight, which was part of the original "electric spine" plan. Your back to trying to justify electrifying a route solely for the use of 4 trains per hour, I'll bet the maintenance costs alone outweigh the benefit.  If it was a deal breaker that EWR had to be electrified from the start it wouldn't get built at all, too expensive.

I'm sure I read somewhere that wiring further than Didcot had been abandoned due to the massive cost increase over what was projected, Bi modes being the solution for the time being. If wires do ever reach Oxford it wont be for another 10 years at least, or until someone does something about the price of electricity for trains.

33 minutes ago, TravisM said:

Im not planning to have the Class 60 on the layout due to length of head shunts etc, it would be assumed that that it was left at the exchange sidings (as per real life).  Also, as it’s a stand alone layout, there would be no fiddle yards.

In that case your latest plan will be perfect, the loop should be able to handle a decent sized bogie wagon so it all works.

17 minutes ago, Davexoc said:

 

Had the Didcot - Oxford knitting been erected, it might have been more likely. It would have opened up more opportunities, like Northampton as a turnback rather than MK. And they could have run Bescot to Hinksey under the wires too...

 

I agree completely, and it doesn't look like the wires are going to reach Oxford anytime soon. I've tried explaining this to people before, no point wiring EWR if it doesn't connect with the great western electrification for through traffic. 

49 minutes ago, TravisM said:

 

Any better?

 

Just needs a longer loop, but should work great. I'd be tempted to have a second track entering the steel warehouse, and have the traveling crane coming out of the side of the building.

1 hour ago, TravisM said:

 

Good improvement but there's zero room for a head shunt by the yard office.  I need to have at least 13 inches there.

I assumed that was the exit to the fiddle yard as the signal was on it, and all the others were dead ends? It gives you a usable length run round loop for your class 60 that way, you can always use the fiddle yard as the headshunt.

One thing that I should point out in that video is that all the bridges on the Bicester to Bletchley section have enough clearance for OHLE. No further modifications will be needed to install wires. Any that didn't clear have already been rebuilt. 

It isn't getting wired now because the few multiple units that will use the line doesn't justify it.

Watching those video's does give you another type of train to run, PGA stone hoppers. Perhaps you could use the Kibri loading plant on the siding above the loco shed.

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

I am surprised that WMR does not need the 196s. I have a vague feeling that at one time it was suggested that it would be ex ATW 175s but presumably that went by the wayside after the fires. But don't quote me on that as it may be a complete fiction of my imagining.

Jonathan

Due to the drop in passenger numbers from covid, enough 196's are surplus to operate the service. Chiltern are operating it on behalf of EWR, but I would expect that a few years down the line they will merge into Chiltern anyway. 

If it turns out the rumors of the mk5's heading to Chiltern are true, that would free up a few 168's which could also be used to operate the service instead of the 196's. The 175's are rumored to be going "up" in the world.

Tom has beat me to it, but I came up with a very similar idea.

41 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

  

 

Is that a tunnel or a long bridge? Cut and cover, at any rate.

It's refered to as a no2 tunnel, no1 has twin bores for part of its length. A good prototype for use on a layout with its arched roof though.

A while back it was mentioned about tunnels not having more than two tracks, today I discovered Hockley tunnel.

21 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, the government has put a block on the Japanese getting their hands on a US steel company.

Bernard 

There is alot wrong with the USA, but sadly it does seem that they care far more about this sort of thing than our lot do.

It's a lot beter without the front track, what about having more of the tracks enter the buildings?

Realistically if anyone does the 74 it will be Hornby, they only need to make a retooled body shell as the chassis is already there.  It's on my list to do at some point, I've got a 71 here to butcher using the silver fox 74 body shell fitted with the Hornby cabs.

Although the 74 is limited to one livery and the southern area of operation, it will still sell out. Many people will just want it to complete their collection, even if nowhere to run it in a prototypical fashion. 

20003 could be a bit more of a problem as it was longer than the other two, depends on how accurate you want it to be.

3 hours ago, Danfilm007 said:

 

 

 

I'll probably add one or two in - it's why I quite liked the more unconventional format as it meant there was a lot more space in each of the sidings but this is much less complex and I feel happier with it, length aside!

Curved points are your friend to get the maximum length from the loops, use them on the left side of the yard and you could fit a pair of stub end tracks on the righthand side.

2 hours ago, JSpencer said:

And here is mine pulling 2 trains. The first a rake of Maunsells, the second a fitted freight (cattle wagons and vans). 

 

Runs really well.

 

 

Looks great, especially with the rake of green coaches behind. At the risk of a thread divert are there more pics of your layout anywhere? 

11 hours ago, Danfilm007 said:

 

It is simpler! The curvature on the ends means that you can't really fit many more points in, but I have lengthened them quite a bit so you can store multiple units in the main loops and a longer train or two too. Means it is all accessible from all routes too, and it could be managed on one board controller with a Megapoints 12 point controller for example!..

 

If you want the upper loops longer you can use curved points to start them sooner, them as Chimer has suggested a few stub ends on the shorter lower loops. I'd loose the 3 way points if it were mine, they are expensive so I only use them if no alternative.

1 minute ago, TravisM said:

It would mean that some, or most of the point work would be over the joint, not a very good idea.

If you start with the center diamond positioned to the left of the board joint, none of the points land on a joint.

On 12/01/2024 at 16:55, Danfilm007 said:

 

If I honest I think this design would work better for the space you have, loose all the stub end sidings and you can make the loops longer. Seems a more flexable design in that the loops can be accessed from either end without blocking both running lines.

Is 8 loops going to be enough? Have a think about how many you need and design it around that number.

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Why designers of long items of RTR bogied motive power (or rolling stock) don't design on the three-legged stool principle is beyond me!

 

One end - two body bearers onto the bogie sideframes (but with some slop); the other end a simple central pivot (reasonably loose).

 

That way, the two side bearers give lateral stability but allow longitudinal pivoting; the simple pivot at the other end allows movement in all dimensions.

 

Result - both bogies can follow the undulations of the track.

 

CJI.

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Why designers of long items of RTR bogied motive power (or rolling stock) don't design on the three-legged stool principle is beyond me!

 

One end - two body bearers onto the bogie sideframes (but with some slop); the other end a simple central pivot (reasonably loose).

 

That way, the two side bearers give lateral stability but allow longitudinal pivoting; the simple pivot at the other end allows movement in all dimensions.

 

Result - both bogies can follow the undulations of the track.

 

CJI.

Most of the old lima models were like that, worked well.

What about stretching the first plan over 2 boards, then the fiddle yard on the third board? If you stretch it out a bit you can have more warehouses with tracks going in, then that track layout makes more sense.

I'm convinced it's the bogie castings that are warped, not the chassis. Waiting for a reply from rails on what to do with mine.