Harlequin

8 minutes ago, SteamingWales said:

I'm looking into ordering one of these models but have a question regards the DCC version and hoping the hive mind of RMWeb can help.

 

The price difference between the DC and DCC versions is around £25 give or take, yet the average price of Next18 decoder is around £20. So if I order the DCC version what do I get for my extra £5

Fitting.

43 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Even at the current crossing angle a 4' radius slip would be much better. I wonder how long it will need before Peco take the logical next step in their better OO track range: that of abandoning complete conformity with legacy Streamline point geometry, and venturing at least some 'incompatibility' in the way of a shallower crossing angle.

I think they do indeed need to break out of the existing geometry to make any improvements now. That's exactly what I suggested here:

The idea includes adaptors to connect the new geometry to the standard current Streamline geometry.

A station does not have to be a passenger station - a stand alone goods yard is, of course, a station too.

The point I was making should have been fairly obvious: If you have some reason for trains to stop on scene then operations are more varied. Even infrequent and simple stopping operations add different movement to the baseline trains passing through. You can choose/design the station to meet your desired level of on scene operations.

I know this is getting slightly off topic. Maybe the OP would like to change the title of this thread to clarify that he was asking about station buildings.

On 11/09/2020 at 19:28, Kris said:

Stations are over rated, particularly if you just like watching trains go by.

That's the thing, though, you have to just like watching trains go by and nothing else.

A station makes other things happen - that's why they are so popular.

I'm not advocating against landscape only scenes, they can be great! Just pointing out the huge member of the Elaphantidae family with the trunk sitting in the corner over there.

Here's a quick sketch suggestion for you.

You can see it's very similar, just some slight re-arrangements and a bit of a curve.

The curve allows the yard to open up more and for the lines to reach into the far corner.

Putting the goods shed on the run round spur opens up the yard even more.

The run round loop is just long enough to clear 3 coaches.

The shed track traps the run round loop.

Plain track before the first point allows locos to stay on scene while they run round and lets you see the Home signal better.

Have you got any kind of interference suppression components fitted in the motor circuit? They can affect a decoder's back-EMF measurement.

P.S. You need to test decoders from other manufacturers before singling out Zimos in particular. My guess is that they would all show the same symptoms.

25 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

While I would be hesitant to make sweeping statements for EMU vs steam hauled it does seem a little fallacious to compare them. I imagine the process for EMU arrival departure would be:

 

• Set signals for arrival (if not automatic)
• Set points for arrival
• drive EMU to platform <wait and/or couple with existing>
• set signals for departure (if not automatic)
• set points for departure
• drive EMU from platform

Whereas the equivalent with a tender loco in the steam era would be:

• Set signals
• set points
• drive train to platform <wait>
• re-set signals for pilot
• re-set points for pilot
• pilot attaches
• re-set signals for shunt
• re-set points for shunt
• pilot pulls off coaches and places into sidings
• re-set signals for train engine turn/service
• re-set points for train-engine service
• train engine departs <and is turned>
• re-set signals for shunt
• re-set points for shunt
• pilot pulls off coaches and places into platform and then back to pilot pocket
• re-set signals for train engine return
• re-set points for train-engine return
• train engine returns
• re-set signals for departure
• re-set points for departure
• drive train to staging

 

 

 

 

 

Please have a serious word with your S&T department about the interlocking between your points and signals!

4 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

As the test loco happily runs on to the blade and over the gap on to the first part of the stock rail, to lose power on the second gap part of the stock rail. I think the problem is with the 'cuttable' wires rather than a poor contact by the blades on to the through rails.  The blades (switch rails?) make good firm contact with the through rails.

Ah yes. That makes sense. Duh!

I hope you can get it to work without too much trouble.

I think I'd better go and inspect some turnouts I bought recently!

It's very unusual for a turnout to be duff out of the packet.

You could try cleaning between the blade and the stock rail to ensure they are clean and making electrical contact (a fibre glass pen is ideal).

Here's my suggestion:

I think you've got much too much going on and you should be thinking like the directors of a private railway and trying to make everything as economical as possible.

When you placed trains on the drawing above it looked like the run round was plenty big enough so you could:

• Abandon the bay platform.
• Slim down the platform now that it's single sided to give more room to the yard.
• Push the release crossover as far to the right as you dare, leaving just enough run round.
• Put the goods shed on the spur off the run round.
• Abandon the existing goods shed line or shorten it so it butts up to the shed, leaving just the mileage siding splaying enough to give room in the yard for access.
• Replace the expensive slip with just a normal turnout leading to the engine shed.

In fact, I would go further and flip the whole station top to bottom so that the platform and station building are along the back and I'd try to get a few more curves in but you probably don;t want to do that.

P.S. Technically, you need some sort of trap where the run round rejoins the main line. That could be a dummy trap or for space reasons you could use your double slip there leading to a little stub siding.

15 hours ago, petejones said:

 

It's OK, I have a couple of doors from another model for this and they open outwards. Ironically, they were from a Ratio engine shed!

Sorry. I was looking at your photo of the shed at Rhayader and imagining a sliding door like that. Of course hinged doors would neatly solve the problem!

7 hours ago, stivesnick said:

Hi 

 

The goods shed looks great. Just one problem, how would users get the goods out? The back of the shed is very lose to the main line, so it appears little or no space for a delivery vehicle. 

 

In a way, it would be better to swop the goods shed and engine shed around to give more space around the later building.

 

Nick 

 

Yep, also:

• It's away from the goods yard so would be difficult for the staff to manage the two sides with two public access points.
• You have to keep moving empties and full vans from one side of the station to the other.
• Shunting vans into it will be really tedious because of the kickback and no track beyond it. Vans will have to fetched from the yard two at a time - and all those shunting moves will disappear off-scene in an unsatisfying way.
• It's off a passenger line so has to be trapped and signalled in a very expensive, non-Cardi-Bach way.

(There's not enough room for a goods shed door to open at the moment, BTW.)

P.S. Bullhead rail sleepers are much more prone to becoming skewiff than standard track because they aren't connected in pairs like Code75/Code100.

Maybe something like this?

I've been reading about the Cardi-Bach recently and there was a reference to Newport in the Price book. He says that:

The board of the Whitland and Taf Vale Railway considered changing it's name to the "Whitland, Cardigan & Newport Railway" in 1876. At the time they were pushing the bill for the Cardigan extension through Parliament and they were advised to change the company name simply to the "Whitland and Cardigan Railway", which they did. That bill passed easily.

The Directors proposed putting a further bill forward to extend to Newport and Fishguard in the following session but that never happened.

10 minutes ago, petejones said:

I can just about get three coaches along the platform, plus space for the loco at the left to run round, but two coaches would be more common I think. Re: the platform faces - yes, the line at the rear face was going to be for goods. I could move that line away from the platform, but then I would need a goods shed.

OK, sorry Pete, that wasn't clear.

36 minutes ago, petejones said:

Just measured the platform and it's coming out at 400ft (1600mm), which is about the same as Cardigan (389ft), but double that at Kilgerran (203ft), Boncath (200ft), Crymmych Arms (216-220ft), Glogue (195ft), Llanfrynach (171ft), Login (185ft) and Llanfalteg (213ft). I could perhaps do with another line behind the station, making it three, but I think that would look crowded as I like the gap between the two sidings to allow carts/lorries in to unload. There were two mileage sidings at Crymmych Arms to the south and one to the north; only two at Cardigan, plus one siding for the loco shed. I suppose I could add a shed to the right?

 

Perhaps Newport couldn't get as much land as they wanted and had to make do?

Apart from Cardigan those are all through stations that don't need room to run around. Some of them are passing places but that's a different kettle of fish. (I'll forgive you for leaving out the best station on the line, Llanglydwen.)

You've got one platform but two platform faces and you only need one face to be like Cardigan. (I'm assuming that the lines either side of the platform are both accessible to the platform in your drawing and not fenced off like Moretonhampstead, for example).

I guess a minimal setup would be: platform line against platform face, run round loop, goods shed line, one back/mileage siding and some basic loco facilities.

Can you see the leaping Marlin, BTW?

23 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Thank you - in my world, this sounds like fun.  While the carriage siding was in place by 1948 it sounds like it can be classed as optional for a model.  In terms of coal traffic, the extra wartime siding would have been in place by then, which I haven’t included in any of the versions yet.  From what I can tell, the point for that extra siding was immediately after the Goods Shed and before the second crossover into the Goods loop, presumably to give the maximum possible length for the siding before the turntable.
 

Thanks, Keith.

It's encouraging that Mike thinks that the Fairford variations with the kickback goods shed are workable. The addition of a coal siding would make sense but the danger is that the plan might start to look a bit overdeveloped.

Without redesigning the plan from scratch, maybe the simplest and most open position would be alongside the goods shed track, something like this:

That's just a quick hack: You can see that I haven't aligned the new turnout properly. (Also, the extra required trap is not yet inserted and the run round loop is still longer than strictly needed.)

Hi GP,

That sounds like a lot to try to fit into 8ft by 2ft. What scale are you going for?

With other stations on the network called "Newport" the GWR would have given this one a different name to avoid confusion. "Newport Nevern" or even just "Nevern", maybe?

You wouldn't have that problem with St David's of course...

Hi Pete,

I wonder about having two platform faces and the platform being completely bounded on both sides by track. Where is the station building? 
Is there a geographical reason why the station is hemmed in to a small area?

Edit: What I mean is, your baseboards are very restrictive even for a small single line BLT in West Wales after compression! So for the station to make sense I think you need a plausible reason why it's so small.

24 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Phil, could I ask a quick question on these trestles (I think you said you have some?). The website gives measurements for the trestles as 792mm high - I think that means working height when folded out (not storage size when folded flat).  I make 792mm just under 31.5”.  The footprint is given as 572mm by 578mm which is close enough it doesn’t matter which way is which (23” sq. covers it).  I’d go and look, but the website still says they’re not in stock here at the moment so I thought I’d ask.   Thanks, Keith.

When they are opened out they are ~440mm across the splay and exactly 750mm tall. So the 792 must refer to the folded size. They weren't in my local B&Q last time I looked either.

There are lots of similar products but those were the cheapest/simplest. You could go for the metal ones with the top bar that rises to get clearance above your desk but... they are heavy, painful when they hit your ankle and more tedious to setup and adjust.

12 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The advantage of the prototype arrangement, which admittedly does appear strange at first sight, is that it can be shunted conveniently from the main line.  The goods loop in your plan doesn't appear to have any purpose - it has to be kept clear for use as a headshunt for the siding, but the siding could equally well come directly off the main line.

Yes... You can see that it could be shunted by either removing or using any vehicles stood on the goods loop but that seems a bit unnecessary.

Hmmm...

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I can't see how that would be workable, given that wagons need to stand on the goods loop (or what is it for?).

 

Come to that, while I understand the desire to use the space in the corner, I think a closer representation of the goods yard at Fairford would (with one exception) be easier to work.  That was basically a long siding, divided in the middle by a crossover,so each part could be shunted separately from the platform end.  The short kickback to a loading dock is the exception to easy working and either was not loco shunted or required a loco to enter the goods shed.

 

As the runround on Phil's latest plan is significantly longer than the trains that will be run, I think that the points at the station end could be swapped to increase the length of the goods sidings somewhat without it becoming cramped.  I also don't see why the loco facilities shouldn't reflect the prototype more closely, giving something like the very hasty sketch below (swapped points arrowed):

 

You're right that my run round is longer than it needs to be. It's roughly 1100mm between clearance points and 3 coaches would be, say, 800mm allowing some leeway. I hadn't measured it properly until just now and didn't realise it was quite that long.

So there is some room to optimise things. I was worried that the goods loop looked a bit short.

The goods shed in the top left corner does make good use of the space, though, and the turntable gets more difficult to fit the further left you move it - especially because there's likely to be a baseboard joint in the vicinity.

Thanks Keith!

It's a little bit lumpy but the important points are:

• Platform line has a clear run of 915mm (after leaving the R2 curve) - just countryside in front.
• The main line continues around to the loco release spur, and...
  • All loco facilities and the run round loop are below it, inc. 55ft turntable. (Loco movements need the run round loop to be kept generally free.)
  • All goods facilities are above it. Staggered turnouts at the release end give some headshunt space for the goods loop.
• I allowed the release spur to get close to the end of the layout because it's obscured by the engine shed.
• Stubby end loading dock - just long enough for one van.
• Minimum radius turnout: Medium (i.e. ~3ft).
• Cassette connection on hidden curve board (so no need for another baseboard rail joint) and away from the back edge of the cassette table.

Edit: I forgot to point out that there's no dedicated carriage siding in this plan... Is that a huge flaw?