Harlequin

"Remember to leave room for a traverser to slide across so that all of it's roads can connect to the rest of the layout. And the similarly for cassettes: you need room and easy access to handle them".

 

Hi Phil

 

I'm pretty sure that I am in traverser land here. I don't have the space to knock up a fan of sidings that would work and I'm not convinced that a 4 coach long cassette will be the best way to handle the EMUs without dropping them.

I do think that the width of my plan might be a sticking point and I might need to find the proverbial "extra 6 inches" which is a possibility.

I'm not too bothered if all tracks don't all line up but, obviously, most will need to if the layout is to operate properly.

It might be that with the extra width I can pull the stabling sidings forward leaving the space behind for the traverser?

 

David

To clarify: I was worried that a traverser only appears to have room to slide down one more road from your two feed lines. So a traverser could only have a maximum of 3 roads that can be connected to the scenic layout - and one of those could only be connected to the top-most feed line.

Thanks Mike! The photos will be a big help!

Edit: Your advice about signal 20 has just clicked. (I was not thinking about the real track properly. Lesson learned.) Would a third disc on the same post as 16 and 17 be acceptable instead of moving signal 20 back?

When I was a little boy living in Hermitage our neighbour, "Uncle Jim", was a signalman and my Dad and I visited him in his box one day.

Unfortunately I can't remember much about the experience except that I was allowed to pull a small lever at the far end of the frame, which I think was to (un)lock the crossing gates, and I couldn't do it! I was only about 7.

Then later on, when we had moved and had a nice little layout, Uncle Jim came and told us, at length, where all our signals should go. I can't remember much about that either...

I really should have paid more attention!

Hi Mike,

I'm just the office draughtsman on this diagram and Steve (SIGTECH) has the final say but just to clarify a couple of things:

I think you're saying that the FPL levers were usually pulled to lock the points - to use completely non-technical language. Correct?

Regarding signal 20 and discs 16 and 17: The current idea is that disc 16 reads from the parcel dock through the crossover to the main line connection at point 8. And disc 17 reads from the parcel dock to the loco shed. A train in the bay platform may be standing in advance of discs 16 and 17 so should there be a disc/signal to show that the crossover is in the "normal" position for exit from the Bay platform? Or is signal 20 enough to do that job? If none of the above sounds right to you, what would you recommend?

Thanks for taking the time to give us your advice!

Hi CM,

Have you seen "Edwardian splendour in 6' x 4'" int this month's (Feb 2018) Railway Modeller?

Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works, but have you considered putting the goods facilities at one end of the visible sections you have planned, but on the outside of the 'main line' curve?

 

It would make your goods sidings considerably longer, plus it would use up space on the extremities and perhaps allow you an operating well in the centre.

 

Perhaps  you could get rid of the outermost platform and just have one on the inner side of the visible loop.  Certainly there were many branch stations with a similar configuration as traffic levels were low and there was not the requirement to pass two passenger trains. However, it would be quite acceptable to pass a passenger and goods train with such an arrangement.

Yes, I was going to suggest something similar. The outside corners are valuable real-estate and it's easier to avoid baseboard joints out there.

Here's a design that I did with sidings outside a small main circuit: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110147-kings-tawton/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2913648

Notice also that you can start your passing loop further around the curve and run sidings parallel to the main line for some distance for a more realistic feel.

I'm not sure if the station building will be of independent origin or GWR yet but it's fun to doodle:

Most people advise not to go anywhere near MDF as a surface because it will require a lot of support (unless it's very thick and thus very heavy) and the dust created when cutting it is a real health hazard.

Also, PSE will warp unless you buy the very best quality and/or you can either keep it attached to something so that it can't move or control the humidity carefully.

The best advice seems to be to use good quality ply throughout for baseboard construction - both for the top, the sides and the bracing. (Maybe with some PSE to help make joints.)

Properly designed boards made from ply should be strong and light, warp resistant and should maintain straight and square edges for reliable track joints.

Here's the latest update:

Where things are still unsure I've left them alone (e.g. FPL lever sense) but I will change them if Mike advises or if you just prefer them to work differently in your model.

Hi Steve,

No problem! I'm enjoying learning the technicalities and I'm keen to get the drawing reasonably correct.

Ah yes, and I can see now another way that I misunderstood those two discs... 

My understanding of FPL levers is that it was most common for the lever to be "out" (pulled) to unlock. The other way around also happened but was less common.

Lever names: I'm putting together info from various web sites and making educated guesses but if there's a definitive GWR or BR(WR) document out there I'll follow it.

I'll make some changes and post a new drawing later.

I've never investigated XTrackCAD, even though I've seen plenty of people using it here. (Shame there isn't a Windows 64bit version but it is open source with source code archives so this might be fixable.)

Be careful when you use the download page to only download the [Edit:] installer for your machine [/Edit], not any of the other rubbish that the page tries to push at you.

Edit: The Windows version of XTrackCAD is a very old-fashioned style app. Not very user-friendly, IMO.

Hi Steve,

About discs 16 (top, reading for line on left) and 17 (bottom, reading for line on right):

The Bay to Dock crossover is normally in the "straight through" position. I think that would be the normal state for crossovers and that's how I've drawn it. So, will those two discs show clear when the crossover is in it's normal position (i.e. most of the time) and "danger" when it is set to crossover? If so, I hadn't twigged that... Or have I got them the wrong way round? I'm getting more confused the more I think about this!

(I think it is standard for the topmost disc to read for the leftmost line.)

Edit: I think I know where I'm going wrong: I should be thinking about routes, not just the state of the next points.

I'll make sure I use the term "Parcels dock" everywhere.

You're probably right about signals for your era. So #4 and #5 are small arms and is #21 also a small arm?

Hi CM,

Welcome back! I'm a recent returnee as well and it's really interesting to see that so much of the hobby remains the same while other parts have really moved on, not the least of which is RMWeb itself. It's a great resource and a vibrant community.

I think you've already realised the main issues with your current plan and they mostly come from the restricted width of the boards and thus the tight radii of the curves. I think also that the goods sidings are not long enough to do any useful shunting and you've got too many places where tracks cross baseboard joints.

It sounds like you've got plenty of space so if you could expand your baseboards a bit you'd make it easier to produce a good design. Maybe go up to 2ft6in by 5ft boards to give a total area of 5ft*10ft in a more symmetrical arrangement, like this:

If you do have a bit more width then you can open up the radii a bit, solve the reverse curves problem and make the loops and platforms longer like this:

(I.e. insert the curving side of a straight point into the curve just before it straightens out.)

And similarly, to get a smooth run into your inner sidings, continue the curve with another point immediately following on:

Hi Steve,

I'm glad you like it!

Yes, I think The StationMaster would have to answer some of your questions. I'll leave you to rub a signal lamp with an oily rag and summon him forth ;-) Shazam!

My suggestions are:

• Signal number 5, Goods Home, would be a smaller armed siding signal, possibly centre-pivoted.
• Signal number 21, Goods Starter, would be a smaller "ringed arm" signal.

What's the name of the tunnel?

Hi Philou,

I think scottystitch was suggesting running two lines into the traverser (or turntable) separately. I.e. the anti-clockwise take-off from your main circuit and the clockwise take-off would arrive at the traverser/turntable separately without joining together. That would mean you wouldn't form a triangle of track and so wouldn't get "polarity" conflicts on the baseboard tracks.

However you would still have to switch the "polarity" of the rails on the traverser/turntable depending on which line it connected to on the baseboard (I think) so I'm not sure it gains much.

A DCC AutoReverser is easy to wire up and once fitted you should be able to forget about it. It will then allow you to drive any route you like without stopping to manually change polarity. Furthermore, you don't have to think about which direction on the knob is "forwards" on the part of the track controlled by the Auto-Reverser - forwards is always FWD on the controller.

Sagebrush is a member of the Artemisia family and several varieties are commonly grown in UK gardens.

The most well-known is "Powys Castle" and it does get woody and leggy over time, just the like photos of American Sagebrush on Wikipedia...

Hmmm...

Why would you want to turn entire trains in this situation?  That way you'll tend to always get the same loco pulling the same stock.  OK for an exhibition layout, I suppose, where ease of operation is paramount, but a bit boring at home.  Run it in, uncouple, lift loco off, stick another loco on back end, ready to go.  Simples.  No electrical connectivity issues, or need for highly accurate woodworking .....

 

Chris

Just saying it's a possible solution that this layout could make use of more easily than most. It has some advantages, one of the biggest being to completely eliminate the point ladders and thus shorten the peninsula or lengthen the fiddle yard roads. Obviously it has some disadvantages too.

To change locos: Drive train onto fiddle yard road, turn fiddle yard 180 so the same road is now connected to the layout, uncouple and drive loco off turntable, rotate to new position and reverse loco onto different stock.

In fact you could have an array of loco spurs on the main baseboard to store locos ready to back onto whatever stock you liked.

Advantage: No loco handling so no fingerprints, no broken details. Disadvantage: Would need precise engineering.

P.S. Don't forget brake vans have to swap ends as well.

Turntable fiddle yard with no point ladder:

The problem with a turntable connected to just a few fiddle yard lines is that you'll then use those few lines to bring in loco-hauled trains and the rest of the lines almost become redundant.

You might then think about connecting more fiddle yard lines to the turntable but that gets very congested and takes up a lot of space.

Alternatively think about making the entire fiddle yard one big turntable! You have the luxury of being able to do that with your peninsular fiddle yard and space around it. Obviously that has serious Pros and Cons but one big Pro is that you no longer need those big ladders of points.

But in the end loco lifts are probably the simplest and most flexible solution.

Hi Steve,

Here you go. Let me know what you think - there are bound to be mistakes and I wasn't sure what Disc 6 is intended to do.

Edit: I've already spotted a few mistakes this morning. Ho hum!

Beautiful. Thought so, but just making sure.

Thanks.

Hi Steve, Which way does the signal box face? Windows facing the turntable or windows facing the fiddle yard?

Hi Steve,

Thanks. So can you post the info about your layout here (again) and I'll produce a Signalling Diagram like the diagrams that were found in GWR signal boxes and like the one I drew for my own proposed layout:

I'll post the result here and we'll probably have to do a few iterations until it's correct and you're happy with it. I'll probably do a lever allocation list as well because it helps to ensure that the diagram is correct.

When it's done I'll give you PNG or JPEGs at whatever size you want and PDFs that you can print out at high-res or edit in whatever drawing program you like.

OK?

I was thinking about collaborative 3D design of models and I found this service which looks potentially very interesting:

https://www.onshape.com/

It's free for non-commercial use - so should be ideal to try out.

Unfortunately it simply doesn't work on my machine. It may be my high-res display that causes the problem but I'd expect a service like this to have been tested on machines like mine so it's a bit disappointing.

So, "Your Mileage May Vary" as they say and it would be really interesting to know other people's experience of the service.

Should the functions of levers 9 and 10 not be performed by a single lever as per lever 7?

The StationMaster says that each FPL should ideally have it's own lever because two FPLs on the same linkage was hard to keep adjusted.

Lever 7 only locks the facing point on the loop crossover because that's the only direction passenger traffic encounters it. The other end is not locked. The bay crossover has FPLs at both ends because passenger traffic encounters it in both directions.

Hello Phil, I have been watching this little station develop, and it is increasingly resembling my own terminus 'Sproston'. I've included both my signalling diagram and its track layout for a comparison.( Both are drawn using "ANYRAIL" - so nowhere near as neat or professional as your versions ). The signalling design arrived at with the knowledgeable help and experience of Mike (Stationmaster).

My layout is 00 gauge BR WR/LMR 1956-1964 'somewhere' in Cheshire, but compressed further than yours due to available space.I decided to have a turntable as almost half my locos are small tender engines. The main "raison d'etre" for the layout is the creamery, dispatching two loaded milk tanks twice a day to the capital.

I have a blog on here if you're interested - click the link at the bottom to view it.

Finally I have a selfish request - as you have produced such marvellous drawings, is there any chance you could perhaps redraw my signalling and layout plans for me, - the present versions are very 'chunky' and clumsy,( obviously there's no hurry, as and when time and circumstances permit it)..if not then just say no.

 

Regards

(SIGTECH)

Steve,.

Hi Steve,

In principle, yes, I'd be happy to have a go at a signalling diagram for you, time allowing. I'm not sure what I could add to your layout plans, though, because they very clearly show the basic design already. We could talk about them later, perhaps.

I'd need up to date info in some form. (The jpgs above might be enough but the more detail the better.) I have got a trial version of AnyRail installed but not sure how long it will last or what the restrictions are. If AnyRail outputs PDFs they would be useful.

I guess I'd do it in pseudo GWR signal box diagram form, like Hampton Malstead above, unless you want different. And I'd be able to give you PNG or JPEG at whatever size you want and a PDF version of the drawing.

We should either talk more offline or move this discussion to its own thread, or your layout thread or maybe my other thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/