Harlequin

Very interesting Phil. Where do Tint and Shade fit into that, if at all?

Tint (adding white) is equivalent to Saturation and Shade (adding black) is equivalent to Value.

Some programs show Tint and Shade controls in their user interface and under the covers they implement them as HSV Saturation and Value.

Here's my latest attempt:

[Click to enlarge]

Various tweaks and Platform 5 becomes a goods siding.

Are the traps in the station correct now? What do the experts think about the traps in the carriage sidings (taken from Bob's drawing)?

I suppose there should also be a trap before the line from the engine sheds joins the main line but that's your decision Bob, of course.

(BTW: I'm aware that my slips don't show default routes yet. I hope I'll be able to fix that soon.)

Following Grovenor's comments, here's my diagram amended to show Platform 5 as a goods only line.

20180429_222426.jpg

Hi FlyingSignalman (Keith),

Thanks for the revised drawing but I'm not sure that you have drawn the track layout correctly. You show a direct route from the pilot loco spur into platform 2 but Bob's drawings and photos don't show that...

Computer programs often use a colour model called "Hue, Saturation, Value" or "HSV" to define colours.

Hue is the pure colour - like a rainbow colour and is measured in degrees around a circular colour wheel: so 0 degrees = pure red, 120 degrees = pure green, 240 degrees = pure blue and back to 360 degrees = pure red again.

Saturation describes the amount of white mixed with the Hue: 100% Saturation = pure Hue, 0% Saturation = pure white.

Value describes the amount of black mixed with the Hue: 100% Value = pure Hue, 0% Value = pure black.

You can see how that maps onto colour mixing in the real world given that most colours already have some black and white, Saturation and Value, mixed into them before you start.

Here's version 4, with station approaches, carriage loop and loco facilities (again not fully shown in this diagram because I think they would not be signalled):

[Click to enlarge]

I worked out a way to show the pilot loco spur double slip and that helped to compress things a bit.

I think what I've shown is largely in line with Keith's suggestions regarding traps except for the spurs between platforms 1 and 2 (Traps 7 & 8 by Keith's numbering). I think Keith is saying that neither of them is needed and if I don't have to include them in the signalling diagram it would make life easier! But it's up to you...

P.S. I've still shown Platform 5 as "passenger", not goods, because it has a direct connection to platforms 3 and 4 and it looks a lot like a parcels bay to me... Let me know what you want.

If you know the name of the next station up the line I could show that. Similarly, if the overbridge has a name.

Hi Bob,

Here's the first draft of just the passenger areas of the station in schematic form. I think I have the topology correct. I don't think I've caught up with everything that others have been saying so there are no doubt some discrepancies.

[Click to enlarge]

I've shown the double slip next to the pilot loco siding as a pair of points because that fits best in the straightened out format. Maybe there's a better solution.

I suspect that the goods yard would have been unsignalled and omitted from the signalling diagram - so I haven't shown that yet.

I haven't shown all of the traps that have been discussed yet. I think that connecting the goods yard to the passenger lines using a pair of crossovers (as shown) would remove the need for separate traps at those locations - but I'm not an expert!

Hi Bob,

The first thing I'll do, then, is try to translate your trackplans and photos (very useful thanks!) into a long thin schematic just showing the trackwork and significant buildings without any signalling.

I'll post it in this thread for you to approve (we might have to go through a few versions to get it right) and after that we can add the signalling.

OK?

Hi Bob,

I made a signalling diagram for Sigtech's "Sproston", which is also 1950s BR(WR), a few months ago. See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/?p=3032108

It was produced with the invaluable help of Mike, The Stationmaster.

Would you be interested in something similar for Cambrian Street? I'd be happy to have a go!

If you look at the historical mapping websites, maps.nls.uk or old-maps.co.uk, you can find some old station track plans. They aren't always accurate in their details and the maps don't often seem to go back much further than the 1880s but there are a few earlier.

Benson 3 has a touch of the Constable about it...

The processing might have its uses but the original is far superior in my opinion!

BTW: I hope you are collecting 12 of the best photos for the Little Muddle 2019 calendar ;-)

The Bulleid is specified as working on a min radius of 438mm (2nd radius) and your small Hornby points should be 438mm radius - so going by the numbers, it should work. But of course, other factors will come into play.

Reverse curves might be the problem?

If your garage is damp/humid that might be causing the baseboard to undulate a bit...?

If you wanted to re-lay the track and adjust the design still using Hornby/SetTrack perhaps you could open up the radii by cutting the corner of the L a bit more, like this rough sketch?

The double track circuit is mostly 3rd and 4th radius except at the right hand end where it is 2nd and 3rd. Station, sidings, engine shed, etc. would be in the middle.

That does make the back corner more difficult to reach, though.

Alternatively, could you do this?

That would really open up the possibilities! Then you could sensibly use Peco streamline points, run modern stock more reliably, reach into the corners more easily and generally improve everything.

Hi David,

I hope we haven't driven you away by bombarding you with suggestions!

It would be very interesting to know where you think your design might go...

You need to draw your ideas to scale to know whether they will really fit in your room. (And you should measure your room accurately, including the positions and sizes of the boxing, the window and the door to ensure that you can design around them properly.)

Given the small size of the room and the position of the door in the middle of one wall, a bridge across the doorway is almost certainly the best way to create a circuit.

Here's a design for a similarly sized room: This one is 8ft6 by 7ft6 with the door opening inwards in one corner but shows the sort of design that will fit:

The Fulham and Alloway prices look very good to me. If I could get Birch ply at those prices I would bite their hands off!

Your plans also sound perfectly acceptable. 9mm sounds about right to me.

I've worked in IT for 38 years

Maybe that's why they hold no interest! ;-)

Strange but I've worked in IT for 32 years and I feel the same. Those little devices ought to be ideal for many model railway jobs but, Meh! Maybe just a bit too much effort required...?

People work in different ways but it's probably best to have a clear idea of what you plan to do before you start otherwise you're likely to waste a lot of time and money.

Computer programs are good tools for getting your ideas straight because the cost of making changes is very small.

They are just tools, though, and you need to understand their foibles and limitations and make them do what you want, rather than allowing them to impose their restrictions on your design.

Here endeth the lesson. Sorry to pontificate on your thread. ;-)

A very simple electronic circuit can delay LED turn on. Basically you just need to allow a capacitor to charge up, so that the voltage supplied to the LED ramps up over time. See https://www.techwalla.com/articles/how-to-add-delay-to-an-led

So a few resistors and capacitors soldered to a PCB strip with cuts across it (like a finescale sleeper) or screwed into a chocolate block should do the job.

A more high-tech alternative would be to use a microcomputer like a Raspberry Pi or Arduino. Pis are very cheap and a simple bit of code could turn on LEDs in sequence with a bit more realism, such as random times between LEDs and flickering (if you're trying to emulate fluorescent tubes).

Phil, that's generally a more rational plan than most in the thread so far, but the throat is distinctly odd. Why is there no direct access from the down line to platform 2? This means that only trains arriving into platform 1 can do so without blocking the up line. For reference the 1938 OS survey of Enfield is on the NLS site here and below is my rough sketch of Enfield Town station from the 1988 Quail.

 

Studio_20180412_121911.jpg

Yes, I realised that the platform 2 entry was a bit daft after I posted.

A double slip in place of the large radius left would be much more sensible. Er, hold on...

Revised:

Hi David,

I managed to fit in a centre siding between the platforms in my design:

I also updated the section to show the big traverser with it's false backscene:

OK, just for my own sanity (!), here's something much closer to Enfield Town and to David's designs.

• Angled platforms to separate them from the stabling, get a bit more length and make the design a bit less static.
• Suggested loco spur and kickback siding behind signal box.
• Fed by a big traverser with the front line scenic and acting as headshunt only.
• All platforms and all sidings directly accessible on arrival from the down line.

Phew!

Electrofrog points will switch the power to the frog themselves of course, through the point blades, unless you have snipped the bonding wires underneath.

So, off the shelf, no extra switch should be required to power the frogs.

Enfield Town's scissors crossover is made at the point of closest approach between the sidings line and the nearest running line, with crossovers between the up and down line either side of it, a bit like this (in Peco Streamline geometry):

Stabling sidings in opposition to the platforms, goods sidings alongside but by 1967 the goods yard was reduced simply to a headshunt.

Washer between the stabling and the scissors crossover.

Note the leading crossover on entry which allows arriving trains to reach every platform.

David's most recent design is similar topologically but moves the washer inside the enlarged scissors crossover.

(Enfield Town was much more linear whereas I deliberately cranked the running lines for more interest.)

OK, I get it now...

I have a further idea which extends the length of P2 and P3 on the assumption that ECS re-positioning is done via the "out" line. Remove the double slip and point on P2 and replace by back to back points on the central siding/P3 exit.  This means that cleaned ECS can exit into either the central siding or P3 directly.  Positioning to P1/P2 would require a move to the "out" and then back to the required platform.  It then becomes debatable as to whether the line from the centre siding to one of the storage sidings at the right is actually required at all?  That would mean 2 storage sidings off a head shunt and all access by shunting to/from platforms via the "out" line.

 

As I have said - some analysis of the kind of traffic expected/desired would be helpful for making a final design.  I am also ignorant of operating procedures that might apply in real life.  What I have seen implies shunting is more usual on the "out" line but maybe this ain't necessarily so?  In which case the diamond ladder could stay in - it looks attractive and town terminal space limited/complexity.

 

A mashed up sketch is attached.

Hi Imt,

David, Spikeyorks, the OP, says that the scissors crossing is characteristic of GE stations and is one of his absolute requirements: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/130407-great-eastern-based-emu-terminus/page-4&do=findComment&comment=3114921

That constraint is key to the design and makes other changes quite difficult. I agree it would be good to lengthen Platform3 and make it directly accessible to arrivals but it's difficult to juggle the conflicting requirements to do it. (I think Platform3 should hold 4-unit sets as drawn, BTW.) In many of David's earlier designs not all the platforms could be accessed from the arrival line so I'm hoping this restriction is acceptable.

It might be possible to replace the back to back points on the arrival line with a slip but the two points do give a smoother curve than a (Peco) slip and I used the large Y specifically to throw the track up to the top of the board at a better angle to give more length to P1 and P2.

There may be a way to combine the scissor crossing with the down line but I can't quite see it yet.

Hopefully my design has enough EMU storage sidings? There is room for more but I didn't want to pack in too much track. (I also have the vague idea of a high-level yard on top of the traverser. It wouldn't be operable but stock could stand on tracks up there for display purposes.)

Here's another idea [Edit: updated slightly]:

Imagine that the two lines entering the scene are either side of a bridge pier. This spaces them apart enough to allow the line down to the stabling/washer area to cross both the trailing crossover and the up running line. 

Plus points:

• Nice lazy wiggle on entry and exit
• Retains your washer/diamond formation
• Stabling sidings with retaining wall on the traverser. When retracted scene looks complete and non-scenic traverser roads could be entirely hidden under scenic cover.
• Traverser opens towards you on telescopic runners so that you have access to all roads
• Giant traverser can have up to 10 roads (although 8 might be more sensible)
• All pointwork in central 5 foot section
• Dense throat trackwork could look great - very urban.
• Crossover on scene means no need for implied crossover offscene or entry onto scene on the wrong side of the tracks.
• Various parallel movements are possible.

Arriving trains can only access platforms 1 and 2 directly (along with the topmost siding and the depot area). Maybe that's OK, though.

There might be other difficulties I haven't spotted yet.