Harlequin

I have to say, it seems to be a bit confused! Why not think of it as a through station with a junction and some bays for terminating specific traffic? Then you would be on more familiar, prototypical territory.

It also feels like there's too much track in every area to me.

Maybe you could abandon platform 4 as a platform and use it for the goods loop/headshunt instead - to both simplify the plan and make the headshunt longer. And could you curve the goods yard around inside the end curve - i.e. make the station L shaped to gain some extra length?

Use the P2/P3 loop to run round your goods, perhaps.  (So you wouldn't be able to leave a train running on the top circuit while you run round a goods train but having done that the ex-P4 headshunt should be long enough to shunt the yard.

And maybe make P2 be the through line and P1 just be a bay for terminating traffic?

Edit: P.S. The shed area would have just one junction with the main line and a splay out from there. (Two roads would be plenty. Three if you really need it.)

Not specifically about signalling but I found some images of Moretonhampstead I hadn't seen before here: https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/?route=product/search&search=Moretonhampstead&category_id=148&page=1

The photos were taken in the 50s when it was still a working station, although you can see that the engine shed was being used as a coal store by then.

Added the "Blinker" and a basic top stage in the Sketchup model.

I have finally got Fusion 360 installed (the problem was with my Autodesk account) so I will have to move across to that but Sketchup is like an old friend...

16 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

 this will be very interesting, especially as some of the parts are so fiddly. It will be interesting to see how the printer handles this. 

My only immediate observation is that real signal arms are generally pressed out of sheet metal and i wonder how the 3d process will cope. That is why most models use etched arms.

However, for posts, brackets, treads, handrails, finials  etc etc, looks good.

Thanks. The signal arms I'm modelling at the moment were wooden. 12 inches wide tapering down to 11 at the boss and half an inch thick tapering out to 1 inch thick at the boss. (Opposing tapers in the two dimensions...)

Half an inch in 4mm scale is 167 microns (if my maths is right) and that should be within the capability of my printer.

I had the idea to try to 3D print complete signals.

If it works this should have the following advantages:

1. The software and the printer will do all the fiddly work of joining all the parts together. This will be helpful for those of us who are cack-handed but who need custom signals.
2. It will allow an infinite variety of signal combinations to be created, just like the prototypes. Thus not relying on the limited combinations supplied by RTR manufacturers and not having to kit-bash parts together or scratch-build.

As you might guess these will be non-operating signals at first. If the idea works at all I will go on to try to make them operational.

I'm concentrating on "old pattern" GWR semaphore signals as described in the book "GWR Signalling Practice" by Smith and the Great Western Study Group.

The railway companies of course made standard parts and the engineers then took those parts and used them as-is or adapted them for the local situation. So if we create the same standard parts in software we should be able to build the entire multitude of prototype combinations. If your favourite station had a particularly unique signal that is characteristic of the place, then this technique might make it easier for you to have a model of that signal - if it works...

The first job is to create models of a small subset of the standard signal fittings from the descriptions, drawings and the very useful 1908 GWR documents reproduced in Appendix 2 of the book. Once I have enough parts I will assemble a fairly ordinary complete signal (in the modelling program) and start trying to print it! (I know next to nothing about 3D printing.)

I would prefer to be creating the models in Autodesk Fusion 360 but at the moment I can't even download it...  So I'm using Sketchup Make for now. This may be the first dead-end...

This will be an ongoing thread - and be warned: It might not go anywhere!!

Here was the kit of parts as of a few days ago:

And here's the top of a 26ft Distant with a 5ft arm and some new parts added: Arm stop, Lamp bracket and Lamp (still both under construction).

There are still lots of parts to make and lots of things to correct. (Since I added the arm stop I now understand why the boss plate casting is the shape that it is and why my models of them are wrong!)

If nothing else, this will be an amazing learning experience for me!

1 hour ago, KNP said:

Lorry update

Work is progressing though a bit slower than normal

 

 

 

 

Superb!

I wonder how the driver would have been attired in that open cab? Cap, goggles, scarf, collar turned up, I imagine!

The 4 by 8 size is horribly constricting if you want to do something realistic. And especially if you want multiple levels. Are you really limited to this size?

5 minutes ago, harriermate said:

Heres the design so far...  

Base layer... (cyan track).  Yellow track is the incline.

 

Base Layer.pdf 550.33 kB · 0 downloads

 

Upper layer... (green track).  Yellow track is incline.

Upper Layer.pdf 500.28 kB · 0 downloads

 

The incline only goes to half height (3.5cm) at left edge and hence why it doesn't cover the lower track work.  Total length of inclined track (not including the 45cm head shunt half way up) is 190cm.  My maths says that's 2.1deg or about 3.6% so hopefully won't be an issue.

 

Agh! I just commented on the gradient in your other thread. We should Please track planning discussion in this forum if possible to avoid duplication and confusion.

21 minutes ago, harriermate said:

Thank you

 

Heres the design so far...  

Base layer... (cyan track).  Yellow track is the incline.

Base Layer.pdf 550.33 kB · 8 downloads

 

Upper layer... (green track).  Yellow track is incline.

Upper Layer.pdf 500.28 kB · 4 downloads

I don’t think the gradients will work because you need to allow some distance to transition from level to gradient and back. The yellow turnout on the left must be level and so the transition to grade has to be included within the ~1m long sections.

That will make the gradient itself very steep.

If you post your plan in the Layout and Track design forum the collected brains of RMWeb might be able to suggest ways to ease the radii - unless you're on an 8*4 board.

P.S. If you do, be prepared to receive suggestions about every other aspect of your plan, though!  Not in a bad way - it's just that people have lots of ideas about these things.

ST244 and 245 are Settrack parts. Electrofrog Streamline code100 curved points are SL-E86 and 87.

12 minutes ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Just make sure you don't want o take the Dapol signals out to do other work where they might be in the way. Robin or Kevin (sorry Guys, can't remember which of you had the problem!), will tell you they don't like  being removed and put back.!

 

Cheers

Keep safe

Paul

I think it was @checkrail on Stoke Courtenay?

With 3ft baseboard width and 15ft length it’s probably a good idea not to push track right out to the edges and leave room for surrounding scenery. That would help place the station in a landscape.

Bear in mind that you want to be able to see interesting parts of the station, and interesting operations, easily from the viewing side. That might require the track plan to be rejigged for modelling reasons rather than prototype reasons. It still has to work prototypically correctly, of course.

The kickback sidings of the original designs above can help to make better use of the rectangular baseboard space and balance the visual composition. They also allow you to separate your small industry from the station a bit. (BTW: In another thread someone wisely pointed out that a dairy is unlikely in a coastal location because half the surrounding collection area is in the sea!)

The fiddle yard roads need to be at least 5ft long. If using fixed track you also need to allow room for the points fan. I hope there’s room for this.

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

This is pretty generous and it should be easily possible to rework the plan using streamline points and flexitrack for much smoother curves.  Harlequin is probably doing that right now...

 

I would add my voice to the chorus regarding the coal kickback coal sidings - IMO you would be better of leaving them out and using what you've drawn as the headshunt as the coal siding.  Don't worry if you have to shunt to extract the empties from the partly-empties as I don't think the operation of most coal sidings in your period was particularly scientific.

Hah hah! No I'm not drawing anything but I agree it's good to know that the OP has such a generous area.

@cypherman It should be possible to do something wonderful along the lines you have proposed in the space. The next step is to draw it to scale using the actual Streamline parts you will use and I suggest that you try to avoid Small radius points completely - you probably won't need them.

What size will the layout be and is the drawing to scale? Which side is the viewing side? Is the rectangle shown above all scenic?

As David said, It looks like you’ve used Settrack parts, not Streamline.

@robmcg Other people use image processing mainly around the locos and other relevant subjects to enhance the image and they try hard to leave the main subject as unprocessed as possible.

You, on the other hand, paint over the primary subject of the images. That's a very significant difference.

Forum threads like this one are about the model and how it relates to the prototype. Your images give very little useful info about either because of the painting you've carried out. That's why I and others find them distracting in threads like this.

Whether they look nice or not, or realistic or not, is a separate issue and is a subjective judgement for each viewer.

@robmcg My suggestion was made in good faith. I think the disclaimer needs to be in the image so that it's guaranteed to be present whatever context the image shows up in.

@ed1234 It might be worth considering how to fit the layout into the space in a more holistic way. By working in conceptual modules you may be missing out on valuable scenic length.

8 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Hmmm. I found it entirely clear that Rob's first image was his own untouched photo  of the model he's just received and the second, in his following post, was edited from that to show the effect of his proposed changes.  While I agree with you about images whose provenance is unclear I don't  think this was an example of that.

Not everyone sees the context, though, (forum settings might hide it for instance) and Google searches will throw these images up out of context in future.

It's not difficult to have some sort of boilerplate credit caption and disclaimer that can be quickly pasted into an image.

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I realise that space may be an issue but you should try to avoid having the two crossovers end-to-end. And likewise the branch connection too close to the second crossover. Ideally, you would have at least a full loco length (or wagon if longer) between them.

Or take the opposite approach and use slip crossings?

Maybe not appropriate for the target era but you could say that they had not yet been rationalised and they would certainly help with space compression.

Edit: Sorry, I should have read more of the preceding discussion about slips.

7 hours ago, robmcg said:

Although it contravenes my solemn promise to not put edited pics in others' threads,  here for the sake of comparison is the same photo with 40 minutes of editing , 

 

 

Will remove if asked.

 

Main changes are; vac pipe on front, coupling on front, 10 spoke bogie wheels, cylinder drains, cab handrail has light under, number plate has shadow edge, speedo thingamy by rear driver..

 

It DOES show how brilliant this would be of Hornby had done the spokes and can handrail from day one, and to be fair they still give 10 spoke bogies on request, and 4021 'British Monarch' has them from new. 

 

I won't mention fall plates, or green livery.

Hi Rob, Can you please add some sort of caption, watermark or credit to your images to make it clear that they are neither images of models nor images of the real thing and might contain errors. Thanks.

23 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

What's another three weeks in the ongoing wait for the single slip - a miniscule blip in the timescale and better Peco stays save for the future  

You mean we might see the Bullhead slips in the next geological epoch? Something for our descendants to look forward to, then!

Here's a plain vanilla BLT model track plan executed in Streamline+

• Baseboards 9ft by 2ft.
• 4 coach run round.
• Double slip used to trap goods yard.
• Deliberately simple and axis-aligned for clarity.

One of the key drivers of this idea is to produce larger radius turnouts and slips and that's not possible with the Streamline geometry. Remember that Peco themselves have hinted that they are thinking about larger radius turnouts. So this idea is inherently aimed at larger layouts.

Having said that, I find that I rarely need to use small radius Streamline turnouts, even in quite restricted layout designs, so I think that the proposed parts could find use on many small to medium sized layouts.

Furthermore, if you were building a larger layout, where you currently have to use standard Streamline parts, I think you would choose the smoother Streamline+ system if you had the choice and so they would take over some of the existing Streamline market share.

Lode Star is one of the few GWR items in the 2020 catalogue. Scheduled for autumn release.