Harlequin

4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

One minor problem - it has sevral passing loops which are too short for 40" long (passenger) trains to pass each other.  The loops at the top of the plan will require one trains to be a bit less than 36" long in order to fit in a signal clear of the fouling point of the additional sidings you have added and be clear of the fouling point at the other end.

 

At the lower passing loops the loop at the bottom will just about take a train 36" long if all goes well, the upper of the two loops won't have enough room clear of fouling points and signal position for a train 36" long - but fortunately(?)  that loop happens to be the one which aligns with the shorter loop at the top of the plant

Yes, long trains might have to stand foul of the inner sidings points in a non-prototypical way but I don't think it's possible to squeeze much more loop length out of the space available. I think this is just about as good as it's going to ever be and hopefully the compromise is acceptable to fit it into 4 by 8.

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Did you consider a piano hinge, Phil?

I did but I haven't got any to hand.

A piano hinge might be a backup solution if these don't work out!

Here's the basic plan of my idea:

Very similar to your plan but:

• Two passing loops, both just about long enough for 40in trains to pass and to stand with all carriages alongside the platforms (but not at the same time). It is very tight, though!
• I've used R2 curves for roughly 60 degrees in the upper left and lower right boards. R3 and above everywhere else. Breaks one of the Givens. This is to help pull track in from the edges and give a bit more length to the passing loops.
• The R2 sections will be disguised by scenic elements.
• There are more tracks crossing baseboards joints. Breaks one of the Druthers. This is done to give trailing connections to the loops and longer sidings.
• There are two small radius turnouts and a slip but the turning routes through them are not in the running lines. 6 curved, 3 mediums.
• I have imagined that the lower station has a more conventional combination of passing loop, passenger platforms and goods yard. Not any carriage sidings.
• Carriage/Exchange sidings are at the upper station which is imagined to be near the junction with the main line. No goods yard as such but there is the local loading dock. The upper passing loop can be passenger both ways or, by removing one of the platforms, just a goods passing loop.
• Central scenic divider is just a spine of hills with trees.

Here's how it could look scenically:

Don't take any of this too literally - it's just to get the main ideas across.

• The top left R2 curve is in a cutting with trees around it.
• The bottom right R2 curve is partly in a tunnel and partly obscured by buildings.
• The shed area would have water, coal and ash facilities but I haven't placed them yet.
• Signal boxes near the major pointwork, station staff operate the crossings at the other ends of the stations.
• The majority of the hill and tree planting is on the upper boards.
• Note two station buildings!
• Min platform width the regulation 24mm (plus 2mm for fencing), except the inner platform of upper station, where I had to get special permission from the BoT to go thinner near the turnout for the exchange sidings...

I found a couple of hours this weekend to add some hardware.

I tried very hard to get the hinge barrels in line with each other:

It didn't really work because one hinge is definitely at and angle but the two boxes do still fold successfully and meet neatly when one is on top of the other.

I also fixed two latches to hold the boxes tightly together in unfolded, operating mode. I'll add some more to hold the boxes together in transport mode when I get them.

5 hours ago, Derekl said:

Sorry, I overlooked wood quality. I am using 9mm birch ply so I will go for 400mm or so. When you say "cross-bracing", do you mean a ladder effect (looking from underneath) or something diagonal?

A diagonal lattice is more difficult to make but resists twisting as well as bracing the deck. It's probably simplest to do it square for ease of construction and then see if you need to add extra diagonals to resist twisting.

My "Vanilla Minories" build topic might be of interest. Because the boards are only 305mm wide I just added just three diagonal braces under each 9mm ply deck, adjusting the angles to avoid point motors. (No need for a lattice.)

4 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Just a quick aside here. Imperial measurements are normally 'downsize' when you come to metric sizes. so 1/4" ply (6mm) is normally 5.5 mm, or 5mm 1/2" ply is normally 11mm, and 3/4" material is 18mm. Sorry to be pedantic, but there's nothing worse than a blessed big gap, when you're trying to make a decent job. 

 

 

I'm not sure that's always the case. I've just measured some sheets of 12mm birch ply and they are on average just over 12mm thick. I think there are other reasons why manufacturers make the thicknesses they do. The message is really to measure the actual material rather than believing what the manufacturer or supplier tell you!

Very sad.

I'm sure a good model shop in a good location could still make a go of it in Exeter.

7 minutes ago, Derekl said:

Much helpful advice on the need for bracing above, but not much on exactly how much. Say you use a 9mm board  of 1.2 by 0.6 metres (or 4' x 2') supported around the edges, what bracing are we talking about intermediately - traditional one every 300 mm or something else? And what bracing for similar sized 6mm board? 

To support the deck well enough to make a flat surface without dips and bumps, I reckon about 250-300mm c/c for 9mm hardwood ply (Builder's merchants ply). For 9mm Birch ply 300-400mm c/c should be OK.

For 6mm hardwood ply, I would guess that 200-250mm c/c would be about right but I don't have direct experience of that yet.

As Nearholmer says, cross-bracing is important to prevent twisting.

6 hours ago, rab said:

I must admit I hadnt thought of that. What's the best way

to fix the ply bracing to the baseboard, glue and pin?

I built 3 identical boards and a bridge section for a test oval using 9mm ply. All the joints in Board 1 were glued and pinned or screwed. The pins often missed and split the ply on the other side.

I gradually used less and less pinning because I realised that it was taking time, doing more damage than good, making the structure look worse and because I realised I could trust the glue.

The last part I made, the bridge section, used no pins or screws at all and it's been absolutely fine.

(To use glue alone your edges need to be straight and square, and just before gluing you should make sure the surfaces are clean by sanding them a bit and removing the dust. Then you needs lots of weights and or cramps to hold the parts together while the glue sets.)

Hi Bryant,

Whether the fiddle yard is a real fiddle yard, where you manually adjust trains, or just a set of storage loops, you may need to get hands-on to a greater or lesser degree. (Track cleaning, derailments, point failures, moving brake vans from one end to the other, etc, etc...)

Are you comfortable you can do that in the current design? Particularly with the scenic area and false backscene in front?

Re. the scissors crossings: Would a simple pair of crossovers (one facing, one trailing) be simpler if you've got the length? They can be built into the end curves and possibly the feeds to the storage loop point ladders to remove some of the "snaking" through reverse curves.

As far as stiffness is concerned 6mm is fine - you just need to brace it more frequently than 9mm.

But remember that the lesser thickness will mean that fixings such as pins, nails and screws, will have less material to bite on. If you glue things in place or can add extra material where you need it for fixing, then thickness is not an issue.

Hi Keith,

I'd like to give you an alternative take on the same basic plan. Some or all of it may be useful to you or other readers. (It does bend one of your Givens very slightly and gives one of your Druthers a really hard time...)

Is it OK to post it here?

P.S. Streamline curved turnouts diverge exactly the same as most other Streamline turnouts so they won't be affecting the length of your top passing loop differently than any other turnout. But there are ways to work with/around it.

Insert: Stand layout on lid, place box over the top, clip down.

Do not turn box over!

Remove: Unclip lid, lift off, remove layout.

Can we change this thread title from "Forum grindingly slow this afternoon" to "Problems with Forum web site" or somesuch?

I don't think the current title is quite appropriate any more!

11 minutes ago, Bluemonkey presents.... said:

I am no expert but what you are saying makes perfect sense and looks like you are right.

 

However you need to weigh things up here, Are you creating a whole world of pain for something that you are unlikely to really see when on your layout? I do not mean this harshly but it is something I have had to learn over the past couple of years. Noticing it, addressing it is good but sometimes you need to un-notice it for your own sanity. I wish you luck, sorry not much help back to my annoying flats.

You need to go back and read the rest of this thread!

17 minutes ago, truffy said:

I've checked my SR H and, unless this was peculiar to the SECR livery, I agree with @Sarahagain

11 minutes ago, Sarahagain said:

So, possibly a 'scale' rail chair, designed to have fine section 'Bull Head' type rail threaded through, with the moulded 'key' completing the look?

 

 

C&L make several types of rail chairs, similar in appearance...

 

https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/online-store/3-Bolt-Chair-Pack-of-250-p124696055

 

 

It could be that the eBay seller has some home-assembled track, and a stray rail chair has found its way into the loco box?

 

Maybe it would be an idea to ask the seller?

Ah! Click! Now it makes sense. Yes, you're right - he was building track using C&L chairs. And in fact, now I look at it in daylight, the plastic is a slightly different colour than the other brown detail parts.

So case solved! Thank you very much!

I recently obtained an SECR liveried H class through the 'bay (in fact from someone I know quite well on here).

It's almost brand new, nothing wrong with it at all but when I opened the box there were a couple of loose parts. These were not part of the detailing pack which was still sealed.

One was the roof vent and that was easily refitted.

The other was this:

It's about 5mm across, moulded in the brown colour of the frame and running gear. I've looked all round the loco and scanned a few YouTube videos but I can't work out where it should go...

Can you help?

5 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

Such a shame. Is the stay the only damage or has the actual running plate been damaged as well? 

Yes, it really is!

I'm not even going to take it out of the packaging to inspect any further because I don't expect to have to bend parts of a brand new loco back into shape. Even if I did I would be staring at the front end for ever more wondering if it's really straight or not!

The retailer has arranged a replacement.

I just received my 6110 in the post. Joy turned to abject disappointment very quickly.

The front running plate is twisted due to being jammed into the packaging incorrectly and consequently one of the stay rods is very badly bent.

Needless to say, it's going straight back whence it came.

I meant realistic in terms of practicality. If you have tracks close to the edge there's no room for any trackwork outside, very little room for scenery and more chance of rolling stock being knocked and damaged.

Visually realistic curves are a subjective thing and you have to decide what attributes you don't like: big gaps between vehicles, overthrow at the ends, overhang in the middle, sharp angles between vehicles, etc.

I think Iain Rice said (in a book) that a good test for a realistic radius was if the outside rail was still hidden under the vehicle as it took the curve. (Note that you can't see the outside rail in the photo above because of parallax.)

For most of us minimum radii are much more about practicality than realism, unfortunately.

Hi Chris (and interested followers),

There's a wonderful group on Facebook called "Everything Great Western". Lots of ex BR(WR) staff are on there, including Adrian Vaughan, and they post photos - many from their own private collections, I think.

Over the past week a guy called Derek King has posted photos of the Tetbury branch. I get the impression he used to work on the line because he's able to name members of staff in the photos.

Could be a great source for you! It's a private group so you have to ask to join.

On 28/06/2020 at 09:39, Leander45690 said:

Wow Phil, this is incredible!

Thanks. It's OK but I can see a few possible improvements.

On 28/06/2020 at 09:39, Leander45690 said:

Exactly what I was looking for and gets everything in. How do you do it?!

In this case, by keeping the throat turning, always turning, so that it can connect to the traverser as far forward as possible. This means that the throat is entirely made of curved turnouts - so for reliable running it would have to be laid carefully and you might have to pay a bit more attention to your wheel back-to-backs to avoid derailments.

Putting the turntable in the corner outside the curve makes better use of the space and seems to lessen it's visual impact. (It is drawn as 75ft diameter!)

Hi Keith, If you used a 3-way point to take the coach and livestock sidings off the loop both could be longer.

Howard,

I think that the over-centre spring has been removed from the turnout in the photos above.

Is that right? Have you done that on all the turnouts?

Do the point motors have their own over-centre springing to hold the blades against the stock rail and If so are you sure it’s working properly?
 

Hold on Howard,

Unless you've debugged the problem with your current turnouts you may get the exact same thing with a set of new ones.

Did you clean between the blade and the stock rail (outside rail) so that they make good electrical contact? (Ideally, use a fibreglass pencil and hoover up afterwards because the filaments that break off are both irritants if you touch them and insulating, which would defeat the excercise.)

Did you do what Malc suggested - bridging across the insulating joiners? If so, what happened?

If not, please try this: Power up the layout, make sure nothing is running, get a bit of wire and starting with one of the working turnouts:

Bridge across one of the insulating joiners to the frog. Then do the same for the other joiner. When you change from bridging the joiner in the straight rail to bridging the joiner in the curved rail, you should hear the DCC80 relay click. When you go back to the straight rail it should click again. Do that a few times, making sure you can hear the click each time.

Then do the same on one of the non-working turnouts: Do you hear clicks on both rails, the same as the working one? (Remember to try a few times each way.)

Bracing all fitted:

Both boxes are now absolutely rigid and square! Those few diagonal braces make an amazing difference. It was important to clamp the boxes to be as square as possible, and to flatten out the warping in the baseboards, while the braces were glued into place because the braces set the shape of everything permanently.

The bottom box in this photo carries the throat pointwork and you can see that I adjusted the bracing to avoid the point motors: