Harlequin

For those that don't want to hand-build track I think I showed earlier in this thread that it's possible to create a pretty good representation of a "classic" Minories layout using off-the-shelf straight left and right Peco Streamline parts. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted/?view=findpost&p=2842274

If the crossover is moved to the dashed position then traffic coming in on the arrival ("down") line can't directly access platform 1. That's why I moved it back. The turntable access from the platform 1 line is similar to the Kingswear prototype (see the 1936 plan of Kingswear in post #8) but yes, maybe it should be rejigged. A release crossover on the goods siding is probably a good idea. This website has some very useful photos and info on Kingswear: http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/newton-abbot-to-kingswear-also-brixham-branch.html It shows that the travelling cranes were smaller than I had thought and ran on what appear to be standard gauge rails so I'll adjust the plan

Hi Seanem44, As you know, I've pushed my design on a bit and this is where I've got to: PDF version with a bit more info: Seanem44 6.pdf The scenery is very sketchy. I don't think the track spacings are right in the docks (probably too close to allow a travelling crane to run between them). And I've no idea how to lay out a military trans-shipment compound. (All points are Peco Streamline.) Phil

Thanks for these insights. Lots of food for thought there! I hoped that a decoder would avoid a stutter by retaining enough "keep-alive" power (capacitor?) and continuing to honour the last commands it received for a few milliseconds - just enough to span the time of the short+detection+switch (or any other typical DCC power+signal glitch). Phil

I have to say I'm surprised at that. I would have thought that a purely electronic AR would always switch faster than a relay and furthermore that any device that caused a visible glitch or stutter in the running of a loco is basically not fit for purpose. I've searched YouTube for videos of ARs in use but since YouTube videos are so glitchy anyway it's hard to really see what's going on. You can tell that I haven't yet seen an AR in the real world, can't you. Maybe I should buy one and set up a test track to understand this! Phil

OK but, as you say, a relay won't work for manually operated points and won't a relay be slower to switch the power than an electronic Auto-Reverser, so causing a glitch in running? Phil

Hi everyone, I don't understand why a simple Auto-Reverser alone, such as the AR1, would not do the job that the OP asked for (assuming that his layout needs one), whether the points are manually or electrically operated. I.e., with no extra switching, detecting, software or relays. The simplest case would be a set of "electrofrog" points feeding a reversing loop (e.g. Peco Streamline code 75 straight out of the packaging): Allow the point blades to provide power+signal to the frog, insert double insulating joints to the outgoing tracks and connect the AR1 to feed power+signal to the isolated section of the reversing loop. As a loco (or any powered vehicle) enters the reversing loop the AR will set the "polarity" of the isolated section correctly to prevent shorts and allow the loco to continue running. While the loco is running round the reversing loop the operator can switch the points without interrupting or affecting the power to the reversing loop. When the loco leaves the loop the AR will again set the "polarity" of the isolated section to match the outgoing track. Why wouldn't that work? BTW: My understanding is that both an AR module and DCC controller detect short circuits by testing if current flow is above a threshold value. An AR must have a lower threshold than the controller so that it switches polarity before the controller shuts down. "Starter" controllers tend to be lower power devices with lower thresholds before they shutdown and that's why the AR1 is not suitable for use with "Starter" controllers - their thresholds are too close to the AR1 threshold and thus may cut out before the AR1 has been able to switch "polarity". Phil

Yes, it's just my personal convention: Purple is Peco Streamline large radius (~4ft) and browny/orange is Peco Streamline medium radius (~3ft). I sketched in a crossover for the dockside lines but I didn't work out proper pointwork for that. Phil

Great! So the curve from the fiddle yard will pass close to the corner where the two baseboards meet and most of the potentially "dead space" is behind it - maybe something along these lines?: I've probably made the main baseboard too thin at 2ft6in in this drawing. If it were wider there would be more room for scenery behind the station. A little diagonal fillet might be useful between the two baseboards and the entry to the fiddle yard might be disguised by a diagonal bridge (like Kingswear)??? Phil

Like this? Phil

Agreed. But it's a very cheap luxury to add that might be useful from time to time in this case. Phil

Thank goodness for that! ;-) Should be plenty of space, then. Phil

I think your basic topology looks OK but others here are far more expert than me. However whether it's workable or not depends on the lengths of the various sidings, headshunts and the fiddle yard. You need to draw it to scale. So is this right?: The baseboard will be 14ft by up to 3ft and the fiddle yard 2ft by 8-10in joined at right angles to the right hand end of the baseboard. If the fiddle yard is only 2ft long it may have to steal some baseboard space. Phil

If your fiddle yard is against a wall then it's probably not a good idea to have scenic areas in front of it because you need regular access to the fiddle yard. What are the dimensions of your baseboard and fiddle yard? Is the fiddle yard at right angles to the baseboard? Phil

A Google search finds this 1:72 model of a wartime corvette: http://www.model-dockyard.com/acatalog/info_RV5112.html Only 5% out of scale and at 850mm long and painted up with camouflage stripes it would make a very impressive statement alongside your docks (possibly too much?). Phil

There are many track plans in the "OO Minories track plan wanted" thread that might inspire you. I contributed two recently. A "pure" Minories here (7ft by 1ft! but excluding fiddle yard): http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted/?view=findpost&p=2842274 And a slightly expanded version (4m*0.4m including fiddle yard): http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted/?view=findpost&p=2859645 Any coastal location is a good excuse for military vehicle offloading and you could really go for it and model a dockside. Phil

Hi Clive, Please forgive me for sticking my oar in when I possibly don't know all the constraints, don't know what I'm talking about, and haven't produced a workable suggestion but... Looking at your track plan, it occurred to me that after the two twin lines have left the station, they effectively join back up again in the main loop. So, you would have GNR trains passing L&YR trains running in the opposite direction and, having sent a train out on the GNR, it would arrive back at Sheffield from the L&Y (or vice-versa). So I wondered whether it might be possible to give the GNR and the L&YR separate, twin-track loops. So, four trains running continuously, GNR up and down passing each other and L&YR up and down passing each other, until you're ready to call one or more of them into the station. I came up with this - it's just a sketch of the topology not to scale, shows no storage sidings and I don't know if it would physically fit in the space available. I didn't know which lines were which so I took a punt on the left hand lines leaving the station being GNR (blue) and right hand L&YR (red). The blue lines are simple and on the same level as the station. The red lines descend after leaving the station to a lower level so that the red loop is independent of the blue loop - it just passes under it where they cross. The red line takes it's time to join the red loop so that the incline is not too steep but also to keep the centre of the space free and make one of the joins use the same space as one of the blue joins to save space. If the loops were not intended to be scenic they could actually be right on top of each other to save more space, not offset as I've drawn them. Phil

Nothing significant - just using this blog entry to upload a signature graphic.

I notice that "Misty" was at sea on the day the BRM biplane flew over to do their aerial survey... Phil

Ah yes, great ideas. Thanks. Running big Pacific locos is a bit of a squeeze but that is one of the requirements of David (Pacific231G). He has a bit more room because I think he's modelling in HO scale but even then the crossover between the platforms might not be usable by his intended trains of Pacific plus 5 vehicles. PhilM

Yes, your method is very similar - a cassette is pretty much the same thing as a loco lift and loco lifts could be used instead of my suggested cassettes. I haven't had any personal experience of loco lifts but I was a bit suspicious of their quality and reliability and I wanted to not be moving expensive locos around too much or too far. There's also a space problem in this design because the intended trains fill the length of the traverser roads. So I suggested "plug-in" cassettes for accurate track alignment and the hidden spur gives a bit more room for the loco to be marshalled "under it's own steam" rather than by fingers. But anyone can pick and choose the methods that work best for them. And yes, the connection through the warehouse can be used to marshal goods trains out of sight, on the traverser. I think David (Pacific231G) probably always had that in mind. PhilM

I know I said "one last improvement" before but here are some refinements that would make my previous design work better: Features: Loco cassettes on traverser (300mm wide for OO Pacifics!) allow locos to be turned and moved. I thought about other configurations but I think this is best because the small cassettes are easy to handle and don't have to move far. Other rolling stock stays on the traverser. The traverser is reduced to 6 roads so that all roads except T1 can connect to... ... a spur hidden in a building in the scenic part of the layout. All traverser lines, T1-T6, can be connected to either the Up or Down station running lines - so rolling stock can never get trapped. It would be very easy to gently curve the platform 1 and 2 lines so that they are perpendicular to the right-hand end of the baseboard and thus allow further extension if required. Generously curved platforms always look good! Shown with dashed lines. The cassettes and the hidden spur allow locos to be turned and coupled to the front of a different set of rolling stock without appearing on the scenic part of the layout like this: Train runs out of station on the Up line to any traverser line (T1-T6). Loco runs onto the cassette at the end of the traverser and uncouples. The operator moves the cassette (turning it around if required) to a clear traverser line. The operator connects the traverser to the hidden spur and drives the loco across the traverser onto the hidden spur. (Remember to keep the warehouse doors closed so that the loco can't be seen from the station!) The operator connects the traverser line containing the desired rolling stock to the hidden spur and reverses the loco to couple up with it. The operator slides that traverser line across to connect with the Down line and the new train is ready to depart. That way a loco can run around rolling stock on any of the lines T2-T6 but unfortunately not on T1 because that line can't be connected to the hidden spur. It would be possible if the traverser only had 5 lines but I think it's best to have as much storage as possible. There are lots of way to work around this problem, including manually repositioning the loco but the most interesting is this: In the dead of night, when no-one's watching, open the warehouse doors and drive the loco from the hidden spur, through the goods yard onto the headshunt and back up the running lines to either Up or Down connected to T1. :-) Edit: Fixed a mistake in drawing 6f. Replaced by tweaked drawing 6g. PhilM

If you are using DCC, yes. Just wire all the left rails to each other and all the right rails to each other using the same convention for left and right as the rest of the layout, then take just one pair of flexible wires off one of the tracks to your DCC controller. The wires between tracks can either be on top of the board, crossing from one track to the next under the rails or you can drill holes and take the wires underneath the board. That way all tracks have power and control signal all the time. There's a small danger you might select a loco and drive it off the traverser by mistake but you just have to be careful and the trade-off is the simpler wiring. PhilM

Sure, but in this is designed for a specific room size of 4m width. Phil

Thanks, One last improvement, then: Large radius points for all reverse curves. I think this layout needs a traverser because any points in the fiddle yard would reduce the length of the trains it could store. (More roads = more storage and more operating potential.) Escape route for passenger locos from platform 1. Goods yard with 3 sidings and headshunt that can be operated independently from the passenger side (because you said passenger alone was not enough). Concealed fiddle yard connection in goods shed (as I think you've hinted at in previous plans). I'm happy to provide a to-scale PDF if anyone is interested. Phil