metijg

I'm having a very haphazard play with Tillig track at the moment, mainly because of their mixed gauge (HO with HOe) range. It's like all projects, started off with enthusiasm but then reality of time and space kicked in. The track is very cool though, quite different to the standard UK offerings. 

I've make a few observations in this blog: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/blog/2566-why-dcc-not/

I hope it's of use..

Amazing track plan! 

I saw this and had instant regret i didn't plan something similar. Looks like so much fun

Amazing, inspirational stuff!!

Can I ask, did you scratch build the hopper, or is it available as a kit?
 

thanks!

Just saw this little snowplough loco in Les Diablerets station. I found it quirky and interesting, so sharing in case you do as well...!

Maybe a stupid question, but if a loco with a stay alive capacitor crosses an auto reverse controller does the world end?

Does the charge stored in the capacitor Have a direction or can it still be discharged once the rail polarity has changed?

thanks! 

Hornby have just taken payment for the pre-order. I guess this means they are on the way?

Hello community, 

I've searched the forum and found only negative comments on Olivia's trains in regard to customer service and cost. Not to open that debate again, but is there another similar supplier who can provide the whole service in a one stop shop (DCC, sound, lights, cab crew, weathering etc..) which people can recommend?

I'm going to move to DCC and would like to push the boat out on one or two locos to see what is the full capability of the system. 

Thanks for your help!

On 01/03/2020 at 13:55, Nile said:

Electrifying Frogs

 

 

This is brilliant.

I'm also using Peco 009 setrack with a Bachman Baldwin and find 100% reliable running difficult. Like you, I've wired up as much of the points as possible to avoid needing point-to-rail contact, which works to keep momentum going but it doesn't eliminate the problems you get if you stop a loco in the wrong place, frog especially.  I'm inspired by this and everything else you have achieved. 

Thanks for sharing!

Tim

I'm not sure if anyone is following this any more, but just in case i worked out some more detail for the sidings in the middle. I'm pretty reassured the whole thing will still fit in 3m x 0.8m, which is a dimension i will have to negotiate with the other occupants of the house!

Hi everyone, 

I'm living in Lausanne and have the pleasure of taking the Lausanne - Neuchatel - Neuchatel Serrières CFF trains every day and after 10 years i can attest to swiss trains reliability. I also regularly use the non-CFF narrow gauge trains to go to Blonay / Les Pleiades, Leysin, Les Diablerets, Gstaad and Champery and i'm a semi regular visitor to the steam museum in Chamby above Vevey. 

If anyone needs any local materials, maps, photos etc of anything near here then just let me know. 

Cheers

Tim 

This has been fermenting at the back of my mind!

I realized that the shunting into the buildings was more of my priority than the tipping. Killing the NG to SG tipping removes the need for steep gradient changes and makes the whole thing less complicated. Also, i was following another thread which mentioned Tillig three rail track (NG and SG combined), which would be very, very cool and i'd love to integrate if possible. These shifts came to me at work, hence the quality of drawing has now dropped...

In explanation, the top section is the same as before other being at the base height (maybe a touch up..) and trucks from the mine can still be reversed into the buildings. The SG is on the other side of the river, which is necessary to explain why the NG loop is needed, and there is an exchange siding across a low platform. The three rail track could be gratuitously used to provide the run around loop for the SG. The head shut for the NG would go off scene and would then provide an excuse to have a continuous run. 

To hide the entrance to the scenic break a bridge of some sort could be used? Although it could be quite small, maybe even a rough footbridge. The siding at the front doesn't really bring much other than scenic quality and could even be modelled as relatively disused. 

Finally, if tipping was still required, then it could be from a conveyor from the buildings to the SG. This also gives each gauge an independent mission, NG raw product for processing, SG the finished product which is more satisfying. Also i think the conveyor is harder to model, but maybe more reliable in the long run?

Quite excited, hence the quick drawing during a meeting, but ready to have my bubble burst! 

On ‎15‎/‎02‎/‎2020 at 11:24, Harlequin said:

Hi metijg,

 

I like No.2 because of the land form, the stream. and the trestled tipping station. (And the flat NG will make it more reliable.)

 

The plans that push the tipping station headshunt in front of the scenic break and the "fiddle yard" really work well, IMHO, because they expand the scenic area, disguise the fiddle yard best and the headshunt makes sense technically.

 

I think you should definitely have a continuous run in the final design!

 

Maybe you could move the mine entrance and the bridge over the river? And maybe the small stream in #2 could replace the river?

 

Yes to all of the above. The change of river location can open up the back space better and the mine entrance could be almost parallel to it. It will also make the loop make sense as it stays on the high ground for as long as possible.

Definitely right to discard idea 3 as the gradients would have been impossible and the scene too busy

I'm disappointed to lose the railway access to the buildings as this would give a lot of operational interest. Maybe I'm being too naïve about this though and trying to squeeze too much into too small a space?

I'll try and find time to draw it up. Thanks!

So three possible ideas based on the discussion (thanks BTW..). I also moved up to the smaller radius NG points with no adverse impact on the board size.

Idea 1 - The SG is moved to the bottom so that there is a single gradient flow from high at the back to low at the front. It gets complicated at the end of the bridge where the NG is at the same level as the road level, while the SG goes under. Also there needs to be a clever way of hiding the entrance of the NG to the scenic break. Dummy engine shed?

While this fixes a lot of problems it is not a good use of the space in the middle. Not totally convinced

Idea 2 - Same principle as before but the NG crosses the gap between the left hand curve and the bridge on a trestle bridge to not break the view too much. Again a clever way of entering the scenic divide is needed. There is also possibility of using some of the space at the front for scenic stuff. 

Still maintains the original concept but somewhat fixes the view

Idea 3 - The tipping is part of the main mine area and the loop descends to allow the NG to reach the same height as the SG by going up and down the head shut.

Fixes a lot of problems but creates a lot more, the gradients will be complex and can the line be justified at all? 

Idea 4 - Built on Idea 3, but loose the loop and just have clearly separated NG at the top and SG at the bottom.

It would be simpler, smaller, but losing the continuous run would be a shame. 

Somehow there is no perfect solution..

44 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

It occurs to me that if the tippers worked they should tip towards the viewer so he can see the operation more clearly.

Very agreed! However, I'm struggling to see a way to re-align everything without increasing board width?

The working tipping makes me nervous, other than the famous 'End of the line', which is incredibly elegant, I've not seen any solutions that look easy. It will be fun to try though.

p.s. Ticks are a problem in Switzerland. Little gits, they deserve to be in cool boxes!

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

You could put the SG on a decking over the river (water still flowing below) and the NG on a spidery trestle, so that it doesn’t totally block the view.

 

 

That's a great picture, as you say there is a lot of scope for hills! They also had a lot of interesting structures which were used to evaporate the separation water which i think is the building at the top of the picture. However, i was hoping to avoid that and focus on dry rock salt production which would require more generic mechanical separation technology. I need to do some research into all of this though, maybe another visit next week.

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

You are indeed fortunate to have such scenery and such interesting railways on your doorstep.

 

i have explored some of the railways in that area, notably the MOB, where colleagues from the Secheron company took me to the workshops, substations etc, but there is so much of interest within a few miles that I have not seen all the lines.

 

 

I know!

My fantasy local model would be Cossonay, just outside of Lausanne, It's a mainline station with local industry (a mill), sidings etc., then interesting topography with a funicular which if you stretch the artistic license could be made to link to the meter gauge MBC line which is on the high level.

If you had unlimited resources then you'd also add in a fore-shorted Morges station which has a very interesting siding where SG trucks are put onto NG bogies to travel on the MBC line. The whole combination would tick a lot of cool boxes..

14 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Is the standard gauge track going to be a bit hidden by the landscape? It seems to be in the bottom of the quarry, if I'm reading the plan correctly?

 

Yes the SG is lower than the NG and i agree it's not perfect, the lowest ground in the middle it doesn't work visually and is quite hard to explain. I was thinking the SG level would be an old river bed, possibly with a small brook parallel to the track going to the river, while the NG would be built up until it arrives back to the road level.

Moving the SG to the bottom does feel right, but presumable it needs more width? Something i was trying to avoid.

The rough trestles i like a lot, it would be very fun to model and could be included regardless of the solution

43 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Are we in Austria?

Close!!

Switzerland - the Bex salt mines about 30 minutes from Lausanne, however it's total artistic license; the real world is much more interesting, there is a very narrow gauge tram that runs into the mine, then a meter gauge railway that runs to the mainline station, which serves as a terminus (Aigle) for 2 other meter gauge lines, one of which has a cogwheel. It would be pretty spectacular to model in some compressed form.

43 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

I think I might try to angle the back-scene at the right a bit more, to slightly increase the scenic:not-scenic ratio.

 

And, does the NG go over the SG in the FY, or under it as shown? I’m assuming over, otherwise The gradient from the tipping dock downwards will be like a roller-coaster.

 

 

Agreed on this, I was already thinking of having the front section scenic and going the full length of the board. I'll post an updated version later. Yes, the NG does go over the SG and stay high all the way round, that was a mistake.

7 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

  Normally I would suggest set track for such a tight location but I guess you want code 75.

It's true, code 75 is just an indulgence to try something new. I actually took the bullhead dimensions, with the big points, so this could be compromised. I'll have a look later. 

Thanks for your input

I was thinking about building a small layout, mainly as a test bench to learn how to do a few things (pour water, scratch build etc) in both 009 and fine scale. The plan is below and I'd love to to have the RMWeb input!

The inspiration is a small salt mine I visited recently which had a small footprint outside but was massive inside. It was also build around a river as I'm trying to depict. 

Working from top right, the narrow gauge would emerge from the mine entrance and cross the river on a wooden bridge. The trucks would have access to an open drop to tip spoil, which would probably only be scenic as the point would be difficult to motorise on the bridge. The track then loops round in front of low relief mine working building, which have arched access for trucks to be reverse shunted into. The full trucks could be shunted in, back to the fiddle yard and empties would come back out. These connection back to the fiddle yard is through a continuous cover of the buildings that would also span the river. 

At the bottom the narrow gauge would go to a wharf next to the standard gauge and ideally the wagons would actually tip, but this may be out of my skill level! It would then cross the road as the end of a siding and then through the scenic break through some cover. 

The standard gauge would have a run around loop for movement and a few sidings in the fiddle yard 

The low-relief building at the back provide depth, and hide the river from obviously starting from a backscene, while the scenic break on the right side is ensured by the road bridge.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

20 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Shop around as many places have good deals on them. Check places like Kernow, Hattons, Rails, TMC, etc.

 

One of the 3 coaches is 25 quid on Amazon at the moment! 
 

Is it too good to be true?

8 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

Stanier Period III coaches are probably the only suitable in Hornbys current range. Haven’t really done many other LMS super detail coaches. 

@Hilux5972 I've got some follow up questions...!

I see both corridor and non-corridor coaches, with a slight difference in price (a fiver for a corridor!) is either more fitting? Can they be mixed in one train?

Thanks! 

I felt compelled to buy something from the centenary range and plumped for this one as it seems to be the most 'special' single train that i could actually run within the normal context of the layout. The die-cast especially was a defining feature, plus it looks magnificent. 

LMS is a bit out of my current stable - can anyone suggest which carriages would best fit the model?

Ok! I'll try a test tonight

I've been using very find sand to build the ground around a 009 yard to try and recreate the photo below from the Talyllyn. The sand went in very nicely and i coloured the PVA as it was applied to give a base colour, but the intention was always to then add a layer of paint on top. However, once dry i wasn't sure...! The natural variation of the sand and the spread of the paint gave some interesting variations which would be lost with a coat of paint. However, without the paint it feels a touch too grainy for the scale. You see dilemma? I made a test piece to try different colours and thickness of paints and it soaks in very nicely so that there are no brush strokes, but it becomes very one-colour.

I'd love a second option, paint or not? or even better a magic technique that will keep the look but make it feel a touch more in-scale. Thanks!