Harlequin

I suggest that the hidden or semi-hidden storage loops should be in the A7-H9 area because that's the only place where you can reach them from the outside.

Blank canvas:

Hi Nick,

Be p*ssed at the burst water pipe but don't let that emotion transfer to the poor innocent layout. If it was going to be good before it can still be good again, probably better, and anyway don't you need it to complete your journey along the Launceston branch?

Remember the King of Swamp Castle:

"Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up!"

Hi Pete,

If you had one station in the form that Chris is suggesting and the other as a pair of platforms either side of the double-track with a footbridge, that would add some variety.

I have the feeling that your design is being held hostage by that turntable! Could it be moved?

The storage roads are nearly 10 feet long. Do they need to be that long? (Stacking up two or more trains in the same loop can be a pain in the neck if you want to get one at the back out...) What train lengths are you imagining running?

How would you feel about multiple levels? E.g. Building on top of your existing boards and having some track rising up to that level? (If it could be done.)

How would you feel about building more baseboards across the existing operating well? Either as a permanent fixture that you have to duck under or as a temporary bridge that you just set up when you need to use it? (I'm thinking about reversing loops...!)

Can I ask another "vision" question?

• Have you thought about the type of operations you want to do? Would you be happy to watch trains circulate while you amuse yourself shunting wagons or moving locos in the shed? Or would you like to operate to a sequence or timetable of pre-planned movements?

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

 

Hm. On plain ground. But in a 3 % incline?

57 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
That’s pretty good for an rtr model of such modest weight.Question is 12 of which coaching stock as they are of varying bulk and free running characteristics ?

 

As I said, it wasn't a scientific test, just to put some quick test results on record and back up what Neal said.

Only tested on the level. 12 very similar coaches - all Hornby 57ft or 60ft stock with metal wheels and poinpoint axles in plastic bogies. (See the video for 10 of the 12.)

How graphite actually works - From another thread:

On 10/06/2020 at 17:48, Harlequin said:

Can I just follow up on this a little bit? I really want to know what the Graphite actually does!

 

So Mark, are you saying that the graphite is primarily an oxidation retardant? And the fact that it is conductive is what allows it to be used in this context?

 

Does it serve any purpose in preventing dirt building up above it, or in repelling dust? If not, then won't you sill get interruptions in pickup due to those things and have to clean the track to get rid of them (and then redeposit graphite again)?

 

On 10/06/2020 at 18:10, FoxUnpopuli said:

Quick answers to Phil's qs.

 

Oxidation retardant: Yes, and yes, this is because it's a thin coating over the rails that is an oxygen barrier that happens to be conductive.

 

Preventing dirt or dust buildup, technically no - although dust won't 'stick' to graphite as well as it would cling to surface with more friction (think of waxing your car) but most 'dirt' on the rails of Nickel Silver track is corrosion anyway.

 

If your track is heavily dusted or dirtied (from say, plaster dust from renovation work) then unfortunately yes, you will need to physically clean your track - probably more a vacuum cleaning exercise.  If you've graphited the rails, further cleaning might be simply a dry felt pad - a Hornby or Dapol rail cleaner - run dry under light pressure. 

 

Further discussion - selected from a Google search: https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/magazine/mrh-2015-05-may/fight-dirty-rails-with-graphite

That's a definite improvement, Pete!

If the pink and green lines were closer together all round with platforms outside them rather than between them it would be much more realistic. (Note: Double track through-lines with platforms either side is Extremely Common, Single track through-lines with platforms either side, Uncommon.)

But there are still a few problems and I think you're failing to see past some very old, very fixed ideas. Hopefully, we can throw some challenging new ideas your way to help you get to a better solution. @Chimer @Zomboid @Flying Pig

BTW: Using a computer program does not inherently make rigid and boring designs... (And it's the best way to exchange ideas on RMWeb!)

Hi Pete,

I think you're floundering, not quite knowing what to do for the best or how to do it! Is that fair?

In think that maybe you haven't got a really clear vision for the layout and we might be able to help you better if you, and we, knew what the vision was. So:

• What are the things you really must have in the layout?
• What things would you like to have if at all possible?
• Do you really want two stations? Would one be enough or would you have more than two if you could?
• Do you need a fiddle yard or a storage yard? I.e. If the layout was all scenic and there were enough places to park all the trains you want to run would that be good enough?
• Is it a "must have" that three trains can be set running and left to themselves? Would 2 running and one being actively driven cut the mustard?
• Do you have any real stations or real places in mind whose spirit you'd like to capture?
• What about the landscape? Do you imagine rural, urban or a bit of both?
• What level of realism are you aiming for on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is Thomas the Tank Engine and 10 is finescale, ultra-detailed (e.g. Pendon).

1 hour ago, TheQ said:

Received a message by MS teams from a person I've never heard of , who tells me I have agreed to a "meet",  to discuss  " cool stuff" I work on,  at a time long after I would finish work at some distant time in September..

Whoever he is he will get a very snotty reply tomorrow,  if I can work out how to do that, having never been shown how to use MS teams, it just appeared on the computers one day.

Roughly saying,  

"I've never heard of you, so will not be discussing anything about work, unless authorised to do so by someone I know. 

I NOT have agreed to meet you nor anyone else, with the covid 19 virus situation,  I doubt we will be meeting. 

I'm an aging man I don't work on " cool stuff" like a spotty teenager. 

You have selected a time long after I finish work for the day, so no chance.. "

 

Meanwhile in non rant mode,

Funnily enough I was making pineapple curry yesterday,  though I doubt to IL Dottore's taste,  mind you I'm not sure it will be to mine either, I haven't tried it yet.. 

 

Exceedingly heavily traffic all the way home,  the new road works traffic lights have moved to where they have actually dug a hole

 

If that message was an email, don't reply and don't click on anything inside it! There are some known scammers buzzing around MS Teams trying out all kinds of "social engineering" tricks to extract your personal info.

I think it would be good to add some more operating potential to the layout and so bringing those sidings to life might be a very good idea. Since they do actually exist in reality it's only a small fiction to make them actively used rather than weed-covered and rusty. Who knows, maybe Network Rail will follow your lead!

A few other things:

• If it's accepted that the West FY crossover can appear on scene then how about moving it up into the position that the crossover would have been in the original junction? That would make some operations a bit easier, a bit closer to (alternate, less rationalised) reality and allows the exit to the FY to be simpler - plain track running under the double road bridge more like Castle Cary. You would have to use curved turnouts to move the crossover up.
• The FY East crossover could be in the curve and that would help to move it off-scene and avoid a reverse curve at the same time. (Same for the West FY crossover, in fact, if you wanted.)
• How about also moving the old goods yard siding up so that it's fully on scene and so that the spur backs onto the Up platform? That would also need curved turnouts, probably. At the moment the old goods track is half on scene, half off, and crammed against the edge of the room. Moving it up would help to release it from the backscene, make better use of the NW corner and make it more like reality.
• The branch crossover could start in the NE corner curve (again using a curved turnout) if you wanted to squeeze a bit more platform length or shift the platforms a bit more clockwise. (Only one curved turnout because the inner radius is too small for the through-route at that point.)
• The bridge on the East is very close to the backscene. That's fine if you can make it look OK (see Little Muddle!) but it might be worth trying to get a bit more gap somehow.

HI Rich,

Might be better asking this in "Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure"

Onshape never worked for me.

Sketchup is also online now, of course. Still a beautiful bit of software, IMHO.

I don't know the capabilities of RailModeller Pro, either!

If it can load an image as a background and set it's size accurately you might be able to lay parts on top and get a reasonable match. But note that this plan has been divided in two by the book spine and so the two halves would have to be carefully aligned.

Probably better to use RMPro to create a new design from scratch, of the size of the space you actually have available (!), and then copy this plan into it bit by bit.

This is "Sanditon" from the PSL Book of Model Railway Track Plans, published 1988, when we should be able to assume CJF was using Streamline or Settrack geometry for his OO designs. (He talks about using special 12° and 22.5° set squares in the final chapter which would support that.)

Min radius 600mm and grid spacing 300mm.

There are 3 levels of track crossing each other on the left hand side and even the turntable has two separate levels of track running beneath it!

I think the steepest gradient would be about 1 in 35 and that should be just about fine for his stated train length of 4 coaches.

So it all hangs together as a do-able plan today, I think.

This is not a scientific test just another piece of info to add to the mix.

A random(ish) selection of 10 coaches. Outside curve is 26inch radius and is a bit lumpy in places. No wheelslip that I could see.

Edit: She can just haul 12 but there is definite wheelslip and she slows down when there are coaches fully around the curve and in the parallel straights on either side.

36 minutes ago, Nigelcliffe said:

Next ideas are more drastic, and assume you're confident with the Linux file system:  systematically remove preferences files, so JMRI has to recreate default ones.   If you're careful what you do, keeping renamed copies, you can go back to previous states, and shouldn't loose the existing roster of locos.

 

If not sure what you're doing, suggest taking it up with Andrew Crosland, maker of the Sprog. 

 

Nigel

Thanks Nigel, I'm a Windows man but I can fiddle around with the files if I have to.

It doesn't sound like a fun occupation for a Sunday afternoon, though! Maybe Andrew will see this thread and suggest something before I work up the energy to start hacking.

The connection looks correct. (“Pi-SPROG one programmer“ SPROG DCC, ttyS0, Connection prefix S)
The defaults for “Pi-SPROG one programmer” are, Throttles, Power control and Service programmer.

If I use the power control I can drive a loco so the hardware connection seems to be working.

Another possible clue: There’s a very long delay between clicking the Program button in the Roster window and the Program window opening.

Hi all,

I have DecoderPro 4.18 running on a PI-SPROG and I have been trying to sync up the chuffs on an ESU Loksound 5. That is proving to be very difficult but it's incidental to the problem I'm asking about here:

The Program window, which I opened and used many times during this process, has now lost all of the Read and Write buttons from all of the tabs/pages. So I can't use DecoderPro at all at the moment!

I have rebooted the system and opened Program windows for other decoders but the Read/Write buttons are still not visible.

While I was working on the ESU chuff syncing I had moved and resized the Program window a few times and my hunch is that the resizing has got something confused and moved the buttons where I can't see them.

Any ideas how I can get them back?

Thanks,

Regarding levels: Gradients in the track are notoriously difficult to handle in small layouts. In this case your trains might be small enough and the locos might have enough traction that gradients wouldn't necessarily trouble them but even so, it might be a good idea to avoid them for simplicity and reliability.

If the track was all level, @ datum, you can still achieve something like your guidelines by varying the landforms around the track instead: 1/3rd below datum, 1/3rd above datum, 1/3rd closing over the track. That would still look great, IMHO.

Just a thought: Do you have room to make the baseboards ("benchwork") a 72inch diameter circle? The kidney-shaped main circuit would then very naturally duck in and out of the scene.

7 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:

In TinkerCAD you can export the file as STL, OBJ, or SVG is either of those suitable?

 

Its an online program so you don’t actually save the files to your own drive

 

Oh, I see...

Can you try OBJ, please? (SVG is a 2D vector format.)

1 hour ago, Jamie24 said:

@Harlequin Have you tried adding internal bracing (remove after printing completed & cured) to your structures & printing them at an angle? From what I have seen & read regarding tips and tricks this gives you the best print quality, stability & less prone to distortion. Hopefully you can see what I mean from the image...

 

I think the van body is best printed upright so that the layer artefacts on the surface are parallel with the planking and so look more natural.

My warped print was done at and angle and maybe I should have added some internal supports.

51 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:

I’ve since done a revision with internal walls as I assumed they wouldn’t be strong enough unsupported

 

Im happy to send you a drawing but I don’t like to distract others from their own projects

The walls are strong enough on their own. Internal bracing would help with angled prints but I'm going back to upright for the next attempt. On the other hand, the empty shell allows the Oxford interior to be dropped in.

I'd love to have an update if you've got one. Could I have the original CAD file??? If I could load it into Sketchup (hopefully) I could tweak things like the diameters of the screw fixing bosses and maybe remove some of the floor to try to get the fit onto the chassis easier. (Removed floor - another reason to be able put the Oxford interior back in.)

I promise I won't use the CAD file for anything without your permission. Edit: And I'll send back any changes I make.

2 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:

Looking at photos it appears that the rivets on the Loriot are only on the ends from where the curve starts, it also looks like there are a couple of tie down lugs

 

 

So I’ve attempted to replicate this

 

 

Good enough for OO gauge

It looks beautiful!

I got a couple of old Wrenn Loriots from eBay with the idea of tweaking them up but they have remained at the back of the cupboard so far...

3 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:

@Harlequin has one but I’m not cheeky enough to ask, plus I believe there is additional work that needs to be done (supports added etc) and I wouldn’t want to distract him from his own modelling.

 

If my boss is visited by three ghosts on Christmas Eve and I get a bonus I might invest in one

I wish I had the time and the mojo to get a print that works! I've done two of the AA6 body so far. The first was great in terms of detail but my printer wasn't calibrated right and it was too big.

(Sorry, not a very good photo.)

The second print was the right size (I think) but all warped because I tried to reduce the number of supports.

I'll try again this weekend, since the weather's decided to put summer on hold...

Jamie is spot on about getting a Photon for yourself - they are affordable and you'd be able to do great things with it, Chris. Dealing with the resin and cleaning up isn't too messy if you're organised and it's pretty easy to get to grips with the software.

Top tips: Put the printer somewhere dark while it's printing to keep the prints really sharp and don't own a cat. As soon as a print is out of the machine every stray cat hair around heads towards it like a heat-seeking missile and sticks itself on!

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I don't think three 'industries' is necessarily over the top.  A lot depends on what they are but as a matter of interest but at one time both Three Counties and Arlesey on the GN mainline had three lots of private sidings albeit rather spread out at the latter and no doubt places with a greater degree of industrialisation could be just as busy.  And at least one of the 'industries' could well be a railway goods facility suchj as a full loads yard - no probem with it being separate from the  (goods) shed traffic as that happened in numerous places.  It all depends on the sort of area being modelled and what natural resources were there to encourage industrial development.

 

The sorting sidings have quite a lot of capacity as well which could be used in various ways both to suit the industries and for more general remarshalling.

The sorting sidings are great, although it might be better if they had a more direct relationship with the branch line.

I accept that multiple "industries" may be prototypically justifiable (based on your say-so alone, MIke!) but in terms of the visual composition of a model I feel that 3 sets of private sidings may be going too far. Especially when one industry would partially obscure the sorting sidings and the work being carried out in them.

I feel that one to two is about the right balance in the space available but that's just my suggestion. simmo009 might be able to make three work perfectly well for him.

Yes, well, it does look very deliberate that the GWR livery will be combined with a BR number plate...

I'm sure it's all part of a cunning plan.

Hi Newbie ,

There's a section of the forum for track planning questions here: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/66-layout-track-design/ You might like to post there to get the attention of the people interested in layout design. (Or ask a moderator to move this one.)

Here are a few things:

It looks like you might have used R1 curves in the inner circuit. Is that right? If so, be aware that most ready-to-run locos and rolling stock require at least R2 radius. (Some of the small 0-4-0s might be happy on R1 and 4-wheel wagons can work.) What do you intend to run?

The two circuits look a little odd in the way they change spacing - as if they can't decide whether to be double track or separate lines that just happen to be close together. But maybe you've got scenic plans that would make sense of that?

The journey from the inner circuit to the fiddle yard (and back) seems a bit awkward.

Welcome to RMWeb!