Harlequin

Phil,

 

But who goes zooming in to 'that' degree? Even with my eyesight I don't 'need' to zoom to the high factors you describe.

 

Just shows though, after using Xara for ~20-years I still never knew about the tiny maths error.

 

Ian

I could give you chapter and verse on maths errors and rendering glitches at high zoom factors but, you're right, they're not really such a problem for most people. It's just my personal and professional interest.

It is sometimes useful to zoom in very close to make sure things are lined up but you really aren't going to see the glitches in normal use.

Would you need to zoom in that much to print these out full size for track laying purposes? Would it matter?

Since printing at real size involves quite a high zoom factor then, yes, some of these artefacts might become visible but they don't affect the accuracy of the line for track laying.

I've found that Adobe Acrobat Reader has a very good tiled printing feature and so for track layout I'd recommend exporting your design as PDF and then printing it from Acrobat Reader. It's quite easy to work out the scale factor needed and the results are very accurate.

Note that there are bugs in Acrobat Reader that cause worse printing glitches than the drawing programs sometimes show on screen (urgh, always bugs to be fixed) - but again, they're not really a problem for track laying.

The shelf needs to be used for some kind of ornament (and not the DVD storage I hoped for) because the LEDs highlight whatever is there.

 

 

How about a bust of Pallas just above your chamber door? ;-)

The round line ends help to ensure there are no gaps when things are snapped together, which can appear at high zoom factors due to tiny maths errors in the drawing programs. (Er, in Xara Designer, anyway...)

But I take your point (haha!) - maybe the snapping positions are still not clear enough in the point templates. I'll have a think.

I was instinctively going to say "no, not suitable" but thinking about it, OSB might be OK. I have used it extensively in the construction of my house and workshop.

As you say, it's rigid when fixed to a frame and surprisingly moisture resistant - especially OSB3.

I'm not convinced it's lighter than ply when used alone and you'd probably have to use 12mm OSB in place of 9mm ply and support it every 400mm to avoid warping.

Regarding the insulated floor panels, why not put the foam side up? That would solve the problem of the rough surface, might remove the need for track underlay entirely and might be a really good surface to model on!

OSB does have rough edges that tend to flake with repeated handling so you might have to clad the edges.

Having said all that, you can't beat birch ply - it's a really lovely material to work with.

I was looking for a Devon branch line terminus prototype recently and came across Moretonhampstead (which is quite near me, as it happens).

I too asked the question, why is the goods yard access arranged that way because it creates some difficulties in a model and that's when I found this topic. Interesting answers, thanks.

I've done a bit of doodling, trying to compress and rationalise the station for modelling while retaining it's essential character. The current idea omits the crossover - is that sacrilegious or sensible? What do you think?

(Click to enlarge)

The buildings are just indicative at this stage.

The idea would be to use Peco OO Bullhead track - so large radius points throughout with one of them having to be trimmed slightly to reduce the turnout angle.

Hi Mike,

Your top-right corner looks quite similar to something I drew recently:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110147-kings-tawton/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2913648

Thanks Iain.

Good questions. I'll do some more when I get time and when I've learnt a bit about the screen recording software.

There are lots of ways to get the lines the correct distance apart. The spacing is 51mm (the closest whole number of mms to 2inches) and Peco have arranged things so that any two straight OO Streamline points joined as a crossover will give that spacing.

So one way is to get the spacing is to form a crossover, as in the video, and then join tracks to the points.

Another way it to draw a guide rectangle, set it's width or height to 51mm then snap lines to it. (Then delete or hide the rect when you're finished).

And another way, if you lines are exactly horizontal or vertical is to look at the X or Y position on the page and add or subtract 51mm.

For curves, if you know one of the radii then you can draw circles of that radius +/- 51mm as a guideline and then fit the line to it.

Or, for compound curves, draw a guide circle of 51mm diameter and drag it along between the two lines, adjusting them as needed to keep the spacing. When radii are small you may have to increase the spacing to ensure that the overhangs of long vehicles will pass each other.

Here is my first attempt at a "mini-tutorial" video:

http://youtu.be/Q0R1DjOgUUo?hd=1

I might do more explaining other procedures that I commonly use when drawing up designs.

 my Z Gauge Airport.

In a Cakebox?

;-)

Hi Kevin,

When/if you've got the time, could you explain some of the design techniques you used to make the layout "photogenic"?

I think we need a masterclass if we're going to aspire to your levels of modelling and photography!

Crewlisle is one of the most densely-packed, multi-level layouts out there and fits in a roughly square space (8.5ft by 7.5ft).

At best you've got 14ft by 6ft to play with by my estimation, reducing to ~4ft width near the window. That favours a more linear layout and even that will significantly impact on the usable space in your kitchen.

I hope that Graham Nicholas is not going to too much effort in creating a track plan for you.

Edit: To further explain what I'm saying: It's fine to use layouts like Crewlisle as inspiration for individual elements of your design but no single layout is going to provide a pattern that you can use directly. Furthermore, you've seen just about every possible design now and all the possible elements (circuits, end-to-end, termini, through stations, fiddle yards, sidings, kick-backs, passing loops, crossovers, reversing loops, turntables, etc, etc...) so there's very little to be gained by extracting yet more track plans from people.

Measurement to the nearest 5mm would be better and some photos of the room.

A DCC auto-reverser could be wired like this:

(The green cross-marks are isolators and the green tracks are powered by the auto-reverser.)

We have to assume that the inner and outer roundy-round lines use the same convention for wiring "polarity" and so if you follow one of the rails around either of the reversing loops in this diagram you will see that "plus" would meet "minus". So there is an electrical reversal here and that's why some sort of reversal control is needed.

(I know that DCC doesn't have "polarity" or "plus" or "minus" - I'm just using those terms to illustrate the point.)

As "34*" said, this is a case where DCC makes life much easier.

If the layout were DCC (which the Grandkids would love because of the sounds and the lights) then an off-the-shelf DCC auto-reverser could probably be used and, if so, that would allow continuous running through the reversing section of track with no manual switching (i.e. just drive the train through any route you want).

It is usually recommended that the reversing section is long enough to hold the entire train to avoid the possibility of accidental shorts and that might be tricky to achieve with the designs shown above - but it might be easy. Just needs to be thought about...

Edit: I "forgot to use the subjunctive..." ;-)

Hi,

A couple of things occur to me:

If you abandoned the top fiddle yard beyond the station you would have more scenic room. So you could move the station further to the right, make it a terminus, and so have a longer single track run through countryside.

And in fact that would help fix my other slight concern, which is the "kink" in the curvature of the tracks and platforms.

(And rationalising down to one fiddle yard might be a good idea, anyway?)

What is the purpose of the siding beyond the headshunt?

What size are the grid squares?

The terminus will be effectively a pure Minories plan with a single track throat, but the kickback will be sited onto Platform Two (the middle).

 

OK, somebody is going to say it, so it may as well be me, while I'm here:

The whole point of the Minories design is that it has two running lines entering it. A single track throat will not be a Minories plan, just a station throat.

Harlequin, as I haven't been to my holiday home since the summer, I can't measure up. I know I should, but I'm 75 miles away. I'm going to be sketching up today, so maybe my own Trax-made plans will start surfacing...

Hi Ed,

Well, that just raises even bigger questions:

Why do you want a layout that you will only visit once every 3 or 4 months?

Is that a realistic goal? (I would like to have all sorts of nice things in my life but I know they're not realistic so I don't waste my time or other people's asking how to achieve them.)

How will you possibly find the time to build it? It will take decades to get to the stage of having any track laid at this rate!

What really is the driving force behind this request-for-help topic?

Come on, Ed. Think it through and if you still think it's realistic give us some positive proof that a layout really will get built.

If you're interested, I have created a PDF file containing the actual-size centre-line geometries of all Peco HO/OO Streamline turnouts and crossings with all their product codes here:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/?p=2874563

They have all been checked against Peco's downloadable templates and their intended use is for layout design in Illustration software.

Ed,

It's been several weeks since I suggested that you do the most basic operation required in designing your layout: Measure the space available.

Neither guessing nor estimating from a low-res bitmap are good enough. You haven't posted that basic information here yet so how can we possibly help you?

Are you just hoping that someone else's plan will have all the items on your wishlist and will magically fit into your kitchen?

Hi Folks,

 

What is the approximate radius of the 'large' turnout?

 

Just roughing out (rough? more like 40 grit) a new layout over here, and I'm looking over the Peco website, without too much success.

 

Many thanks,

 

Ian.

 

PS. Slightly off topic. Many years ago, I had a works T-shirt, labelled 'extra, extra medium'.

Woah! That's a controversial question!

Peco have stated for years that the large radius Streamline points are "60inch nominal radius" but they simply cannot be.

All their straight points have the restrictions that they must give 12degrees of turn and 2 inches of spacing if any two points are joined to form a crossover between parallel tracks.

According to those rules, if you apply some basic maths you can calculate that the maximum possible radius is 45.76in (i.e. a nominal 48inches) and that would make sense within their range:

Small points: 2ft radius (nominal)

Medium points: 3ft radius (nominal)

Large points: 4ft radius (nominal)

I think the quoted "60in nominal radius" is just a silly mistake that they have propagated throughout the years and are unwilling to change now.

I had the opportunity to look at the new bullhead points in The Model Shop in Exeter today and they look very good to me.

The change in sleeper spacing compared to the standard HO/OO code75/code100 pattern struck me immediately. I think it's much more apparent when you see them in the flesh than in photos.

As has been said above, I think bullhead track will make a big difference to British 4mm layouts and I'm looking forward to the release of more variants.

Actually, 0.75m is easily reachable, isn't it. I don't know what I was thinking!

D'Oh! 

The depth of the baseboards, at 0.75m, might be difficult to reach across for modelling and train rescue - if the back of the layout is fixed to the wall.

And of course Pythagoras says that to reach into the back corner is even further - just over a metre.

Certainly not too late!

 

Up until now all of my ideas for ceiling-mounted fittings have involved suspension on cables or chains. The pendant lamp has one of those plaster ceiling centres and a hard mounting against the ceiling would hide this, but leave it there in case I ever wanted to see it again.

 

I actually thought of a circular sheet of board from the top of an occasional table to do something a bit like this, and then remembered I had decluttered and thrown it out. A square or rectangular arrangement would really suit the room better than a circle, and if the timber bracing you suggest was 80mm deep it would give room for LED battens (75 mm wide) instead of the LED tape. The whole thing could go up on some glass plates, with plenty of cable coiled up inside to allow easy installation.

 

Fundamentally this would put the LED battens in the centre of the room facing outwards rather than on the sides of the room facing inwards. I can experiment when the LED battens arrive. I suspect they contain two or three LED strips and if I can get inside them I could reduce the light output by cutting a wire or two. If the LED battens are arranged pointing towards the sides of the room rather than the ends of the room, this might minimise the interference with the layout lighting too - perhaps a panel 1.5 x 0.7 metres or so.

 

I think for me the underside of the panel would be best in white to match the ceiling, but the ideas of fixing up something with four screws, hiding the ceiling centre and wiring into the existing rose do appeal a lot. Many thanks.

 

- Richard.  

There are lots of options. Here are a few more thoughts:

• If the unit is made of 80mm deep bracing with 75mm wide fittings it will probably be quite heavy! So it might be difficult to manoeuvre into place and it will need stronger (and longer) fixings.
• I was thinking of a much thinner construction: 12mm ply at the most and 15-22mm thick timbers.
• Using LED tape + driver means you're just buying the components you need, to get exactly the brightness you need without modifying or throwing away parts of a manufactured fitting.
• The Rolls-Royce option: If you went for RGB+W tape with a remote control you could get exactly the light colour/quality you wanted - and even vary it for different purposes. I don't mean colour-cycling through gaudy primary colours - RGB+W lets you subtly adjust the colour balance of basically white light.

This is a bit late, sorry, but the mind works in mysterious ways and I've only just had a lightbulb moment (haha  )

You could make a new light fitting for the ceiling, connected to the existing rose like this:

1. Cut a square or rectangular sheet of ply to say 1.2 by 1.6 metres.
2. Fit battens to the top face, inset from the edges of the ply.
3. Paint the outside edges of the battens, and the top face of the board outside them, white.
4. Stick LED tape around the outside of the battens and mount the driver inside the battens.
5. Paint the underside of the board white, or maybe an interesting contrasting colour or if it's birch ply varnish it.
6. Wire the driver to the ceiling rose and screw the whole assembly to the ceiling, over the rose.

Thus the traditional ceiling rose and pendant is converted into a sleek contemporary source of concealed energy efficient lighting - and the unit can be demounted in the future leaving the original rose and just four screw holes to be filled.

Here's another design I did recently in this thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110147-kings-tawton/