Harlequin

36 minutes ago, Brinkly said:

Greetings,

 

I'm sure I'm not imaging this but does anyone know where I might track down a copy of Launceston (GWRs) locomotive shed plan? I know it exists but cannot for the life of me remember where I saw it. I was discussing its potential use as a prototype with a friend over the phone (who is just getting into N gauge) and said I'd send it on to him (insert eek face!). 

 

Any help would be greatly apricated! 

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

Hi Nick, Do you mean the building or the general shed area trackwork?

Edit: It is covered in "An historical survey of GWR engine sheds 1947" by Lyons.

More info about the two whistles from P.W.B. Semmens' book, "The heyday of GWR Train Services".

He describes slip coach operation in some detail. The operation of the slip gear was quite a complicated process, which I won't got into in detail here, but it involved both the slip guard and the engine driver.

So imagine the situation where the slip guard has detached his portion and achieved a "sufficiently large" gap between it and the main train ahead. Both would be travelling forwards in relatively close proximity, but imagine then that the driver of the main train had to apply his brakes for some reason. In that case the driver "had to alert the slip guard immediately by sounding the deeper-toned brake whistle with which all GWR locomotives were additionally fitted".

I'm struggling to get to grips with the results from the two colorimeters...

You would think that devices like these, which claim to be calibrated, would give consistent results but I'm finding that they differ from each other and worse, not in a consistent way.

So at the moment I don't trust either of them!

There are lots of RAL colours in the area but I don't think you can fix one as a standard.

For interest here are a bunch of GWR loco greens collected from the web, including some RAL colours (and along the bottom row a few from photos - very dangerous):

WARNING: This graphic almost pointless!

None of the colours above are specified in CIELAB colour space. The point about the CIELAB colour standard is that it takes the light source into account and so a colour is completely defined and we can calculate what it will look like under other light sources (The Johnster).

There are several different RAL standards (just to make life even more confusing) but only one of them, RAL Design, has a well-defined mapping to CIELAB space. (None of the RAL colours above are specified in RAL Design.)

Hi Richard,

There seem to be some inconsistencies in your plans...

• The prototype station is straight but your model space is L shaped.
• The bit of the prototype you are interested in, the shed area, is relatively simple and well-defined but the peripheral bit that you are less interested in, the passing lines, are complicated and extensive.
• To model the shed you only need storage space for locos but if you model the mainlines you seem to be thinking about mainline traffic, which will need much more storage.

I’m sure all these things can be resolved.

One idea might be to use just one leg of your L shaped space to model the shed area with simplified mainlines either in the foreground or background just as a non-working scenic element?

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

" Captain Webb the Dawley man,
Captain Webb from Dawley,
Came swimming along the old canal
That carried the bricks to Lawley.
Swimming along -
Swimming along -
Swimming along from Severn,

And paying a call at Dawley Bank while swimming along to Heaven

"

3 hours ago, checkrail said:

Over at Little Muddle recently Kevin @KNP mentioned occasional damage to the layout from the camera.  I smiled in recognition because only the day before my TZ100 had slid off the tilted plastic box I had it sat on to get a close-up of the station and crushed the complex corner of the station fencing and gate.  The first repair was unsatisfactory - I didn't have quite enough of the necessary Ratio parts.  So I bought a new pack of fencing, and one of ramps & gates, all to rebuild this little corner. 

 

Incidentally, when I was first installing the enamel advertising signs (from Sankey Scenics) I enhanced the enamelled effect by cutting them out, laying them face down onto the sticky side of a piece of clear Duck tape, then cutting round the edges.  '

 

John C.

Hi John, Do you do requests?

Could you snap the same scene from closer to eye level? I bet it would look even more wonderful (apart from not showing off your new fence so well)...

53 minutes ago, cliff park said:

The standard arc reduction for this sort of situation is a diode wired in reverse across the solenoid coil, to catch the back emf induced by the collapsing field. The arc is when you take the probe off, or release the switch. 

That’s what my brief research suggested too. A “snubber”.

1 hour ago, Reg81 said:

 

It's fully converted fortunately, even has heating! The plan is for the layout to go crossways, from the front of the house to the back of the house along the partition wall - like the flat bit on an A if that makes sense? This means there is restricted height at either end of the layout, but as long as I'm not planning on putting any skyscrapers in and don't build the baseboard too high, it's not that much of a problem really. 

 

I think I have a busy weekend ahead of me playing with some of these ideas...

 

 

 

That sounds great!

I had to ask because a number of people who start threads here haven't really considered whether their space is suitable for a railway or not and we only find out after multiple plans have been proposed...

What's the rest of the loft used for???

Hi spikey,

This is a really interesting query because it's not something that has come up much before. If it was a general problem you'd expect to see lots of people saying the same thing but that doesn't seem to be the case, AFAIK.

I can imagine that cheap switches might go wrong after a while but I think point motors ought to be more reliable than you suggest.

So, I'm wondering whether the CDU is in fact the real problem? Maybe it's just putting too much energy through the system?

Arcing in switches is a well known problem and it's worse in DC systems than AC because the conditions for the arc across the switch contacts can last longer and always transfers metal the same way. With AC the voltage reverses very quickly, of course, and any arc deposits metal randomly between the contacts. There are simple ways to reduce arcing but you'd need an electronics expert to suggest what might work in your case.

On my old layout (40 years ago) we used stud contacts to drive our point motors and it worked well except that the violent flashes were a bit scary and there was always a small chance that the probe tip would weld itself to the stud when you touched it!

12 hours ago, Reg81 said:

 

It's less dire than it sounds, just a slightly odd space to explain in a way that makes sense! 

Loft spaces can be very tricky.

Are there any beams crossing through the space that would affect the plan? Does the roof slope inwards? Are there any purlins getting in the way?

(Hopefully the space isn't filled with braced trusses every 2ft!)

Has the loft space been "converted"? If not you need to think about the temperature extremes and humidity levels.

No substantive updates yet but I have some more technology.

The website I was using to convert CIELAB values to RGB belongs to a company that makes another affordable colorimeter. (I didn't that realise until the wonder of cookies showed me adverts for their devices while I was looking at the weather forecast... )

This device, a NIX Mini 2, is a very different beast:

The original blue device is far eastern basic technology - a standalone workmanlike unit. The new device is a slickly designed, tiny sensor module from Canada that pairs with a swish app running on a Smartphone.

So I can now compare samples from the two devices and hopefully solve some of the problems with the initial measurements from the big blue device.

50 minutes ago, Reg81 said:

Extra width on the shelf isn't that much of a problem, but I think 12ft might be a bit tight - this would be so much easier if the doors to the loft eaves were in a better place, the length is actually there, but the space isn't all usable due to the access need. I'll need to do a more precise measure up TBH...

 

 

"Loft eaves"? "a more precise measure up"?

I have a bad feeling about this....

1 hour ago, Aire Head said:

 

Could a mod move this thread over?

 

Might be interesting to see the planning stages for people who may not follow this area?

I think you need to "report it" to Andy and ask him to move it, but...

IMHO, it would be cleaner to start a new topic because people who like to follow builds might not be interested in the design process and it might seem odd to have all that discussion suddenly appear as if it's still "open" in some sense. I would suggest just putting a link to this thread on the first page of your new thread.

Time to start a Layout topic?

You'd be surprised how many people don't think of that!

Hi Reg,

Have you considered using more prototypical looking track for your layout? E.g. Peco Streamline?

Lengths and curve radii would be more constraining - i.e. you would get less into the space and you wouldn't be able to have a loop in the head of your tadpole but it would look more "grown up", as you put it.

Since you say you're into the scenery more maybe that would still work for you?

4ft is generally considered to be too far to reach across. Remember that when you put your hand down you will inevitably be degrading some bit of scenery and your clothes will be catching the little details at the front.

Most stock these days is made to work on R2 curves. You see it stated on the boxes. (There are exceptions like the beautiful little Pecketts and their like.) Curves less than that radius will be a pain when you want to run some new stock and find it derails, locks buffers or needs to be modified to run on your layout...

Remember to leave enough room for the traverser to connect the front road to the rest of the layout - not how your sketch shows it.

9 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

Trust me you don't. 

 

This is the 'Kitchen' and it'll take 12 months+ and £200,000+ to knock it all into shape.

Just needs a bit of plastic sheet across the opening and I'm sure Mrs Bacon can make do until the railway is up and running...?

Got to get your priorities right!

1 hour ago, KNP said:

Good morning.

Today is the day of the return trip of 7802....utilising the help of the Squadron Leader here we see the start of the preparations for that.

 

 

and running around....

 

 

The object beginning to couple up to the other end and push the coaches further along the platform ready for any passengers.

And leave room for the band, of course...

But whoa! Hold on there! We didn't see Bradley Manor in the loco release spur! Wasn't that what the tension was building up to?

Will the band be taking up their place at the end of the platform for the big send off?

I think the Stationmaster still has the bunting from King George's coronation in that big cupboard in his office.

18 minutes ago, pgcroc said:

Gentlemen

 

It seems to be the general consensus of most of you to scrub the high level line.

Consider it scrubbed.  I just thought it would be a fun thing to have trains going backwards/forwards automatically.

 

 

I did wonder to myself why these trailing points were there on the lift out section. There are trailing points in the bottom right of the storage sidings that, to me, do the same thing. Perhaps I am missing something?

Do they have to be anywhere else on the track as @Chimer suggests?

 

 

I am OK with this TJ. Maybe the TT can go there as well. You are obviously well versed in railway practices so I bow to your knowledge.

 

 

I  always look at all the suggestions I receive. To be very honest this looked very simplistic. Hope you are not offended.

 

I am down to 2 main lines running and would like some shunting 'action somewhere'. Looking at videos, books and pictures there are some very good designs out there but most of them are very small layouts which only contain that or large ones that would not fit on my boards.

 

Is it worth only having one main platform? Been looking at this.

 

Perhaps I want too much at the moment, but it's just because I will never do another layout.

Maybe there is a way to do something of interest that lends itself to expansion in the future?

 

If it has to be completely redesigned from scratch I would happily (?) do it. 

 

Cheers

Pete

 

 

 

 

Hi Pete,

No offence taken, that was just a sketch showing what I thought might be a neat arrangement in broad terms. I didn't put any details on but you can see how Keith's detailed plan is broadly similar and they could perhaps be melded together.

You aren't asking too much and stick to your guns on a through station with more than 2 platforms.

Regarding the high level line: That would be much more satisfying (IMHO) if it had a connection with the rest of the layout. Yes, that means a gradient but fear not - you've got the space to do it easily and reliably. Maybe that is where your future expansion could be focused. Plan in a gradient to a high level station now but build it after you've got the basic layout working.

In Keith's plan it's very difficult for mainline goods traffic to get into or out of the goods yard. It requires shuffling backwards and forwards using the branchline as a headshunt.

The curves in the top left corner are the tightest in the plan, the most likely to need to be hidden, but the proximity of the TT makes that very difficult to do.

And I agree with the others that the high level track really looks superfluous.

Going back a few weeks, I posted this:

After trying a few measurements I realise that getting meaningful results is going to be more involved than I thought!

1. If I repeat measurements in roughly the same spot I get slightly different results every time. Fair enough but that means that I will need to take a number of measurements and average them out before it's safe to post any numbers here.

2. The colorimeter can tell you whether two samples are close to each other within a defined tolerance. When I sample one side tank of my Hornby 6110 Large Prairie all the samples are fine, within the tolerance but here's the kicker... When I compare that colour with the other side tank it's consistently outside the tolerance and the colorimeter reports a colour match "failure"! The biggest difference is always in the L axis - in other words one side is darker than the other... I suspect the paint has not been sprayed evenly on both sides.

That's an interesting finding already, even if it does make my idea of comparing models much more difficult.

3. When I try to convert the CIELAB values into colours that my computer can display (on a properly calibrated monitor) the results are always more grey than green - green-ness is barely detectable. I don't know yet if the conversion is going wrong, my monitor is wrong, my eyes are wrong or the colorimeter is wrong.

So I have some problems to work through here!