Ted-ish

1 hour ago, Fat Controller said:

Oxcroft probably wouldn't have incoming coal; a 'Disposal Point' is simply a loading point for opencast coal.

I doubt there'd be fuelling facilities there.  Loco diesel isn't heavy fuel oil; it is quite often carried in light-coloured tanks.

The power station traffic could also include heavy fuel oil(black tanks) in, and fly-ash out to cement works or landfill. You could also imagine a concrete block factory at the power station, which might send product out by rail.

The Knottingly/ Worksop area had/has several glassworks; they'd have sand from King's Lynn, or possibly Oakamoor, which might be in hoppers or open wagons. Soda ash would come from Cheshire, lime from the Peak District.

An important source of traffic around Shirebrook is W H Davis's wagon works:-

http://www.whdavis.co.uk/index.php/products/ In recent times, they've done a build of nuclear flask wagonsa, nother of container flats, as well as cutting and shutting redundant coal hoppers.

Thanks for the info.

So a disposal point would send out processed coal from the opencast only. Noted.

Here's a picture of the fuel/oil container (back of shot):

What might that be?

Thanks for the other notes, very helpful!

Hi folks, I really need your advice and guidance.

I'm trying to plan my layout around real locations, with inspiration from Duncan's "Shirebrook" layout on here, I'll be incorporating my own version.

That area has heavy coal traffic, that's a given.

However, what else might there be, where does it come from and go etc?

My research has turned up these industries:
 

• Ketton Cement Works at one end of the layout - IN coal / OUT cement
• A power station off scene (I'm thinking of having a helix or two) - IN coal / OUT empties
• Oxcroft Coal Disposal Point - IN coal / OUT crushed coal
• Shirebrook itself has a TMD and a station - IN fuel / OUT empties
• Ideas to verify:
  • Heavy oil (fuel) for the above TMD and other areas - there was a tank at Oxcroft, I assume for refueling
  • Soda Ash for a glassworks perhaps - would this be appropriate for the area (East Midlands)?
  • But where does the Soda Ash come from? Coal + limestone, from what location/plant?

In short, I want to add many reasons for the layout to exist. Supply and demand, like the prototype. So I can run sessions to a 'WTT' and actually move, shunt and ship wares to customers.

Locomotives aka fill in the blanks for what I have, I might have bought the wrong locos:

• I have 3 class 58's for Coal MGR - were these only from mine to power station?
• I've seen Class 20's moving empties, but the above goods too? I don't own any of these yet.
• Class BR 25, 2x Rf 26, 31 and 2x 33s - the 33's if not appropriate here can run engineer duties (they're dutch livery)
• Class 37's - 1 dutch, 1 Rf
• Class 47's - 1 Rf, 1 BR blue
• Class 56 rf
• Class 56 DRS - this needs to go, it's too modern
• Class 60 rf
• Class 08's - pretty simple, yard work and shunting... at least that's one I can get right!

I know I'm asking a lot here, so thank you in advance if you provide information!

Does anyone know what locomotives would have worked these in the late 80s-early 90s?

I'm thinking Midlands, particularly Ketton Cement which I believe used the "STS" livery. Although I'm a novice, so please correct my if wrong!

2 hours ago, Duncan. said:

Hi Ed,

both the station and junction signal boxes are based upon the Ratio Midland Signal box kits. The station is a reduced standard kit while the junction box is made from two kits suitably changed to reflect the prototype. I did also buy an brass etched kit but it was too dificult to change and why bother when the Ratio kit is so good. 

Both boxes are lit and the junction box has internal detail, I regret not putting internal detail in the station box too!

Cheers

Duncan

I thought this were the case, the Ratio kit is indeed very nice - lots of fiddly detail!

As a novice, am I right to try and cut the roof and walls with a (new) scalpel type knife, or is there a better way?

I have the interior pack, now that does look very fiddly indeed. I think I'll be using another F-word whilst attempting to put that together!

Hi Duncan, a none ballast related question.

Am I right in thinking you used two Ratio Midland Signal box kits to make the 'larger' junction signal box?

The Dapol product just looks wrong now.

I have to say, I like the middle.

The left is probably closer to reality, but sometimes that is lost at scale. The slightly oversize middle, to the naked eye at 'viewing distance' is probably the best trade-off for level of detail.

I have to say, I really like the colour!

On the photos the dust kind of helps with the scale perspective, certainly doesn't seem to detract.

The bathing sand gets my vote!

ps: thanks for the notes on the signal box painting (I've been studying similar photos).

I asked my girlfriend when she was next shopping to nip by Pets at Home and grab me some bathing sand.

I was met with a blank expression...

Question to Duncan: what paint colours did you use for your signal boxes?

I'm surprised Stuey bathes in that stuff... but it's a good compromise between size (very scale accurate) and colour (a touch off, but very close).

Another vote for C

15 hours ago, Duncan. said:

Hi and many thanks,

I don't know your location but Shirebrook will be appearing at the Scarborough District Modellers' Exhibition in August  (at Pickering) and at the Wigan Finescale Modellers' Exhibition in October, would be great to see you at one of those shows.

Cheers

Duncan

Not sure that's wise, I'd only be trying to strong arm you for those class 58's!

It really does give the impression the track is slightly up-down (ebb and flow) whereas it's actually the landscape, it's a nice effect.

Again thank you for the inspiration - I will certainly borrow ideas for you and your layout. Your Flickr account is just pure eye candy!

13 hours ago, Duncan. said:

Hi Ted, 

Each of the main scenic boards are 4ft by 2ft. The track bed is supported on cross members that are laid front to rear, these are profiled as necessary. Therefore at the junction end where the general level of the 'land' is above track level (i.e the tracks are in a cutting), the cross members are cut into where the track base crosses the cross member, whereas close to the viaduct where the general lie of the 'land' is below the track level the cross members are cut away either side of the track base. The open framing was filled with solid blocks of expanded polystyrene which was then carved to shape and then covered with a lightweight filler (One Strike). I hope you get the idea from the photos below, the profile cross member is just visible on the curved board where the filler and track has yet to be added.

Cheers

Duncan

 

 

Thanks Duncan, very helpful!

Am I right in thinking your rail lines are flat and have no gradient, instead it's the landscape that ebbs and flows around the track?

Also, where did you get your black/grey foam from? It looks unusual and not something I've seen before!

This is an inspirational layout.

Hi Duncan, is the main area along the front on a flat board or is this constructed with open frame like the sides?

Also, am I right in say each 'segment' is 1.25 metres long?

Thanks all, some really interesting feedback here.

You've given me plenty to think about!

(who wants to buy a lightly used Power Cab )

@WIMorrison that's good to know, I wasn't aware of the reliability issues of the DR5000. That's an immediate no then!

Hi guys, looking for advice/feedback.

I currently have a Powercab and whilst it works fine, it feels a little archaic.

I thought I was sold on the Z21 until I started to see the other systems listed in the title.

The DR5000 seems to do everything the Z21 does (including using it's app) and more, which makes me think the Z21 is redundant?

The ECoS has a more traditional feel and appeal. A screen and haptic controls, which I think is nice, however it doesn't appear to the have the flexibility of the Z21 app where you can control a train and points on the same screen?

If any current owners of these systems could chime in with pros/cons, or even better if you've moved from one to the other, that would be extremely helpful!

Hi folks, do you have any advice for this i.e. removing the socket (already done) and soldering directly to the PCB?

For ref and why I'm doing this:

• N Gauge using a Zimo 6-pin
• Class 25 loco and I want to retain the cab and lights
• The socket is just a touch too far to one side
• Removing the socket and using pins direct to board gives enough room.

My first attempt failed to accurately solder the chip.

I'm going to use some wick today to remove all solder, but before I try again I was hoping for some points/advice.

Otherwise, I might be calling Graham Farish for a spare PCB!

Some amazing work here, it's taken me quite a few days to go through the history of this thread!

Can I ask Dave, what's your ballast and weathering process for rails? They look great.

edit: , just seen prev page.

My first video and it's a bit naff, but it gives you an idea!

I'm a novice (started a few weeks back) - this is my N Gauge class 08 sound install (Zimo + Minnow5).

Stalls at the end, I've since found a slight pickup issue on the rear wheels which I'll fix.

Thanks David, some really useful links there that have helped me tweak a few bits.

This is the now 90inch wide (started off 60) version:



The idea here is that there's a loop for refuelling and that will be the busy area, with locos waiting and cycling around. With head shunts to accommodate.

The TMD will have more stationary and stored trains, those that need access to the main line simply sit in the head shunt if there's 2 or more locos refueling, then cycle round as they leave.

There's a little 4 wagon refuelling siding near the tanks.

There's a large siding for a full length 16-17 single boggie wagons. Can be used a bypass too, or for shunting wagons before refuelling if the loco has wagons.

Then of course the main twin loop.

Not completely prototypical, but seems like it will be interesting to operate?

Okay, I was looking at this layout from Clive:

I like it, flipped on the horizontal line for my layout.

However, there's one bugbear - trains can come IN to the yard, but to get out they have to reverse on to the mainline? That seems, odd.

Wouldn't it be better with a diamond above headshunt A's point - and changing the breakdown siding in to a feed back on to the mainline?

We were all new sometime (even me!).

A facing point is one where the point blades determine which way you go, a trailing point is on where you have no choice as there is only one exit. All points are facing in one direction and trailing in the other. Moving on to a crossover, on your plan, you approach the points in a facing direction (assuming left hand running). Traditionally, railways preferred trailing crossovers to facing and that can still be seen in many layouts.

On your original plan, to get between the two blue sheds required five moves, whereas if your crossover were trailing, it would only require three: out onto the main line, reverse through the crossover, reverse again into the other shed.

Hope that helps,

Paul.

I think I get it - thank you.

You might find this post useful: Clive talks a lot of sense about depot layouts and his post shows lots of different ways. Your revised plan has the basics, but you could do as much with fewer points and look more realistic!

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/128441-1980s-diesel-depot/?p=2935638yy

 

A google search (other search engines are available) on ‘Gateshead diesel depot track layout’ will bring up photos and a track layout, and you will see how Clives ideas follow prototype practice.

Paul.

This is a really helpful link, thanks!

I've had another crack at the TMD.

I think this is more prototypical?

1. Access to all 4 shed lanes from the mainline (in).
2. Refueling bays x2 can be bypassed.
3. Shunting siding has plenty of room and sweeps wide around the edge.

Green comes from and goes to mainline, they are not the actual main line (loop).

Does this seem 'legit'?

First of all, it would be useful to know what the baseboard size(s) would be.  But looking at the plan, I think you've tried to put too much track onto the boards. I think a 'less is more' approach would be better, especially in N-gauge.

 

Secondly, the track gets very close to the edge of the board in places.

Thanks, sorry if it wasn't clear but this is a max 6x3ft. Sides where it gets close would be behind scenery so just some perspex to stop anything falling off.

There needs to be a headshunt off the track leading to the TMD off the mainline.

Ditto for the building shown bottom right.

 

The TMD would be better if it contained a run round loop.

 

See if you can find a plan of Landore, Swansea online, or look here:  https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/265831/195226/13/100951

Thank you - I thought a run-round was a headshunt?

Also, great link - I didn't know of that site.

Headshunts are needed to enable shunting movements to take place in the TMD yard and whatever the other yard is without interfering with traffic on the main running lines; this will, as well as being more prototypical, enable you to operate within the TMD yard while trains are passing on the main lines.  I'd say you've tried to cram too much in as well; it the outer main line is next to a wall the trains will hit it, and the roads in the TMD should have some space between them; this is a working area and equipment needs to be brought up alongside the locos; at least 1cm between the sides of the locos in N.  If the sidings at the back are for loco stabling only, they are fine as they are.  Modern loco live out in the open, and only need to come inside for servicing.

 

The run around is desirable, but not essential; if you don't have it, there needs to be an 08 shed pilot for moving dead engines and the fuel tanks.  Speaking of fuel, where's the refuelling facility?  

 

I don't like the facing crossover, and feel that the prototype in this situation would be a trailing one close to the shed outlet.  

 

The width is quite a lot if you go much over 2', as you will have to unless you are restricting yourself to the sharpest set track curves, for reaching from the front to the hidden part at the back; you will have to do this for track cleaning and rescuing derailments if you have your table up against a wall, fine if you have access all round.

 

Apart from that, it's fine!  You are thinking in the right way and with a few modifications this should be a successful layout.  Let us know how you are getting on as matters progress.

Very detailed - thank you! To answer:

The mini yard on the bottom was going to be for fuel, so 1 shed (blue block) and a siding with fuel rails. But thinking about it, that's probably not prototypical?

Noted on the spacing between TMD lines.

The 'beige/brown' area of the layout was behind backboard so fiddle yard and un-modelled.

I have an 08. I like the idea of a shed for it - if that's what you mean?

Sorry, I don't understand "facing crossover"? I'm new!

Sharp curves at back, but soft at front. I don't like trains speeding around, so they'll be running 40-50mph (scale) at most.

Again, thank you for the comprehensive reply and ideas.