Blue13

Thanks for pictures fellas much appreciated.

Thanks Mick 👍

31 minutes ago, newbryford said:

AFAIAA, the 6 (?) yellow SPAs saw virtually zero - if any - use until they were converted to ploughs.

 

But other SPAs have been used on Network Rail IM trains to carry various items.

However, I haven't seen any recently on the daily train that passes me.

What livery were they in and how long ago would you say you last saw some?

Thanks for the info fellas much appreciated.

Can anyone advise if Network Rail use SPA wagons and if so what they carry.

Many thanks.

I'm asking as the bus wire is to thick to fit in the controller track terminals.

Apologies if asking in the wrong place but is it ok to use a smaller gauge wire for the controller track feeds to the bus wire?

Finally got round to wiring the crossover up and it appears to be working fine with the only loco giving a few problems being the Hornby 08.......the Bachmann 08"s crawl through.

So many thanks for all the help it was much appreciated.

Cheers Ian.

You can use either the double slip or the point, the circuits are just mirror images. just pick one, you may as well use the circuit already provided rather than waste time/effort redoing it.

You can alternatively switch one of the diamond frogs with the point and one with the slip, saves a contact if that matters but since a tortoise has two contact sets you may as well go with the diagram given above.

Regards

Nice one thank you.

Definitely use the point to control the diamond. Remember, that if you insist on using the diamond, any switching needs to be in relation to the FAR END point motor. 

 

Sorry if stating the obvious, but...

You mean the Y point (as shown by John) not the double slip?

Many thanks for your replies it's much appreciated.

I did have some joy earlier switching frog polarity taken off the double slip but only tested in one direction so not sure if it will work when the rest of the track is laid.

Appreciate the diagram John so you reckon it's best to take the polarity switching off the  Y point?

Cheers Ian.

Thanks for the link phixer64 and as I say I've been on Brian's site but still couldn't get it wired up to work.

Hoping someone could advise about the frog switching using Tortoise motors....should they be from the Y point or the Double Slip etc.

Hi hoping someone can help with the frog wiring on the Peco  finescale electrofrog short crossing.

I've got the double slip wired up ok but can't get my head around the crossing.

I'm using Tortoise motors to switch the frog polarity. I've also used insulated joiners on all the rails.

I have read a few threads on here and looked on the Brian Lambert site but still no luck.

Excuse the mess.....double slip is fixed down, the crossing and Y point not fixed down yet,

Thanks for any advice. (I have posted in the non DCC section but the layout is DCC)

I did manage to contact Jim on Monday who apologiesed for the delay. I received email notification yesterday to say the order had been posted and on the way.

Apologies if posting in the wrong place......

I bought two of the Airtour Suisse ones with the intention of renaming one.

I went and purchased etched plates for 73 122 'County Of East Sussex' but looking at pictures on the web of 73 122 it shows the large white BR arrows on one side opposite to the Airtour Suisse ones.

The only two named 73's I think I can find with the BR arrows at the same ends as the Airtour Sussie in the Intercity livery (I know it's not correct) are 'Brighton Evening Argus' & 'City Of Winchester'.

Anyone confirm this and why was the BR arrows on some of the 73's at different ends?

Thanks Ian.

I received an order for transfers yesterday that I had placed over two weeks ago. They sent me an e-mail to confirm the order had been posted.

Thanks for the reply Andrew. So if an email is sent advising of dispatch I can assume my order has not yet been sent.

Hi just wondered if anyone had recently ordered and received their order from Modelmaster?

Reason I ask is I ordered a couple of sets of nameplates plus some numbers on the 05/03/18 which has not yet been received.

I have left a phone message (no reply) and two emails. One email was replied too (22/03/18) saying Jim would be back at work after an accident and would quickly catch up with orders.

My concern is it may have been sent and lost in the post.......email on the 11/04/18 hasn't been answered when I asked what the situation was re the order.

Thanks Ian.

Sorry to bring this one up again but the layout has changed a little to single track.

So does the ground signal out from the stabling sidings remain or should it be a different signal in the same position?

Thanks Ian.

I've drawn a trap point beyond the bridge, but it should be offscene so it won't need to be modelled. The only remaining issue I can see is that trains from the two front fiddle sidings have to arrive in the stabling sidings over this line as there's no modelled crossover for them to reach the down main. This does imply access further back along the imagined line - either another facing crossover or a single line after all.

 

Both the 3-ways in your photos seem to be of the tandem type. It's the symmetric one that's an unlikely element in most trackplans.

 

BTW, if you hadn't already built the backscene behind the stabling sidings, I'd suggest a carriage shed over the rear couple of sidings as a view blocker instead, which would make the fiddle yard somewhat easier to reach.

Thanks again Flying Pig.

My mistake sorry I've used Peco SL-E99 3 ways.

You've all given me plenty to think about and I might just be swaying towards single line operation.......maybe keep the point out of the yard as the headshunt?

The stabling points will be used by locomotives and DEMU's (I may add third rail to a few of the main stabling points to allow EMU's).

Plenty of modellers license will allow the odd freight train to come into the station area and be released by a shunter.

Excuse the mess but this is what I have.

The photo is very revealing. Your diagram shows a rather odd alignment of the platform roads and implies the use of the dreaded SL-99 symmetric three-throw abomination. The reality, with a tandem 3-way and the straight platform road aligned with the down main, looks much better (I really like your retaining wall and its pipework). A possible story that occurs to me is of a rationalised four-platform terminus as below:

 

Studio_20180318_102032.jpg

 

I don't know whether you have room to model the foundations of the demolished platform and trackbeds of the lifted roads, but it might help to set the scene.

 

The amount of stabling is almost certainly excessive for the remaining passenger services, but would fit a location in the London suburbs where stock is stabled between the peaks, so I've drawn the main as double track with a separate connection for ECS departing the stabling sidings.

Thanks for that Flying Pig.

Have you put a catch point under the bridge?

Yes I've used the SL-99 symmetric (I've used two I'm afraid).

Cheers Ian.

A possible scenario is that the originally double track branch was rationalised to single track during modernisation c1980s. Leave the point in the stabling siding on the station side of the bridge as a trap and take up the track from it going under the bridge. Add a bit of gunge/ballast in the holes where the sleepers were. 

SE could I leave a headshunt in which could be used as plan below;

Hi Peter thanks for the idea.

This is how it is at the moment;

A possible scenario is that the originally double track branch was rationalised to single track during modernisation c1980s. Leave the point in the stabling siding on the station side of the bridge as a trap and take up the track from it going under the bridge. Add a bit of gunge/ballast in the holes where the sleepers were. 

Thanks for taking the time to reply much appreciated.

Only thing is that point leads to another under the bridge to form a two road fiddle yard. I've not made this easy have I lol.

This is the track layout of the fiddle yard under the bridge.

Firstly apologies if I'm doing wrong having a couple of other open topics regarding the signalling and point operation of my layout but thought my latest question would be better answered in here.

It came apparent that I messed up somewhat with my track plan which is now laid and sprayed, so not really wanting to rip up and start again I wondered if anyone could advise me if my following thoughts would work better.

After the bridge (pic.1) is the fiddle yard and is imagined it's a double track mainline but it has been pointed out in one of the other threads that there should be a catch point and the station throat is very restrictive.

Would it work better if after the bridge it was imagined it was a single line branch line (pic 2).