Titanius Anglesmith

Thank you all for the useful suggestions 

I feel a bit silly asking this. I did try searching but I think the terms “building” and “platform” are a bit too generic for a railway forum....

I’ve laid the up and down tracks in what is going to be the station area. I’m now thinking about how to build the platforms alongside (side platforms, not island). There is a shallow curve through the station, so one platform face will be convex and the other concave. May I ask for some advice on the following points please?

1. What method of construction? I suspect there are as many answers to that as there are forum members. If it helps I am a confident woodworker, but I don’t know how to address the scenic facade. I intend for the platform faces to be brick. 

2. How do I figure out the distance from the running line without either leaving a scale 5 foot gap or fouling the loading gauge? (especially given the end and centre throw of stock on the curve). I suspect the answer is to gauge it using the actual stock in question?

3. I need to lay a siding road on the outside of one of the platforms. Is it best to lay the siding first, and gauge the platform (now an island, in a sense) to suit? Or build the platform, and lay the siding to suit?

If it’s relevant, the scale is OO and the era is 1920s/30s (but naturally the station may exhibit architectural details from before then, eg. platform faces without an undercut). 

Many thanks in advance. 

Great photos!

Just to reiterate, no offence was intended in my earlier post. My apologies if anyone took umbrage with it. As I said earlier, whatever floats your boat. If you’re ok, I’m ok. 

Incidentally, I agree 100% with making any layout transportable, exhibiting or otherwise. You never know when you may have to move from, say, the garage to the box room. My late father’s layout will sooner or later face certain demolition because it cannot possibly be moved. 

13 minutes ago, bazjones1711 said:

As mentioned in the above posts , making a layout different  to stand out  will get you noticed with more booking likely to come your way . 

I’m probably going to be shot down in flames for this, but nevertheless...

I’ve noticed several times on this forum that some people start a layout build with the specific objective of exhibiting it. A case in point above, building something different in order to get noticed?? Whatever happened to building the layout you want for your own amusement? (and if someone else likes it enough to invite you to exhibit, fair enough). Is the hobby railway modelling, or is that just a means to an end, the end being having something to exhibit in front of people?

Far be it from me to tell anyone else what to do with their free time, of course. Different strokes and all that. If that’s what floats your boat, that’s all that matters. I just don’t understand it.

Sorry for the rant. 

23 hours ago, The Bigbee Line said:

Good afternoon,

 

Sorry to kick this thread back into life.  I'm looking to do these in 7mm. This is a clip from an excellent Ian D Nolan flickr picture

 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31890193@N08/albums/72157635474809301/with/14094018672/

 

Has anyone any information?

 

Thanks

 

Ernie

They look very much like the Westinghouse relay cases that are still in widespread use on LU

Thanks for the info 

9 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think I might widen the loading bank and put a small lock-up goods shed on it instead of the large one on the left. 

Apologies for the hijack, but can you post a photo of what you mean please? (model or real).  Lately I’ve wondered whether goods sheds are treated as a bit of a “model must-have”, more so than is really justified. Looking at my local line, I think the ratio of yards with sheds to those without is probably about 60/40. But curiously, there seems to be no correlation between the size or importance of the yard and whether it had a shed or not. I suspect your suggested lock-up is actually a lot more common than is realised, and probably a lot less obvious when looking at prototype track plans or OS maps. 

No offence intended to anyone who has modelled a goods shed, I’m thinking about it myself!

Beautiful layout! 

19 minutes ago, Talltim said:

That middle rock looks like a cute fat Godzilla

The one behind it to the right looks a bit like a puppy...

What a stunning layout! 

3 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

 

Inside the house he has a large wall full of stock and amongst the clockwork and tinplate are these lovely's.

 

 

 

That Tilbury tank 

Bookmarked 

I’ve been watching this develop over in the layout planning thread. I like the idea of “little empire” layouts, and pre-grouping too! I look forward to seeing this take shape. 

The Modratec software is very clever, but it does have some limitations. One thing which irks me about it is that it seems to omit reciprocal locking between points. In your example above, 10 lever should lock 5 lever reverse. In practice 5 lever would be locked against 6 lever as you would never need 5 and 6 points both reverse at the same time. Therefore with 10 reverse, 6 will be locked normal by virtue of 5 being locked reverse. This was very common practice as it greatly simplifies the locking required. 

Modratec seems to omit this, and unless you intervene it will use 10 lever to lock both 5 and 6, which is an unnecessary complication. 

Unless I’m doing it wrong, which is quite likely.... 

It’s great seeing this layout develop! I like the MVR-liveried wagon too 

With regards to timber “sealing”, it’s a bit of a misnomer, in my most humble opinion. A case of semantics, I guess. Wood warps due to uneven changes in its moisture content (amongst other things). As wood loses most of its water content through the end grain, the ends of boards (or edges in the case of plywood) will change, and therefore move, quicker than the rest of the board. Opinions are divided amongst woodworkers, but I’m in the camp that believes that sealing the long / face grain achieves little, and its the end grain that matters. An impermeable seal is not required as the aim is not to seal the existing moisture in, but to allow it to release more slowly. Personally I use PVA glue to seal the ends, but mainly because I have it to hand in the shed. 

On 10/07/2019 at 22:07, Nearholmer said:

the bottom LH corner of the Circle

There’s something distinctly paradoxical about that statement! 

(I know exactly what you’re on about though)

23 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

A CCT is a Covered Carriage Truck: a van built with end doors to allow loading of road vehicles, usually on a long wheelbase and rated to run in passenger trains.  

21 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I have a rough colour coding.......

 

Thanks for the info

While the jury decides between my plan and Harlequin’s interpretation, my thoughts have turned to the power / control arrangements. 

As Harlequin’s plan and mine are essentially the same basic layout but built from different components, by my reckoning the power feeds should be similar. Control will be by DC.

At the very least I expect to put an isolator at the end of the two platform roads, in order to “trap” an incoming loco while a pilot / layover loco is in motion. 

Experience with Dad’s layout has proven that, over time, one cannot rely on the switch rails to transmit power. In fairness, with the size and age of Dad’s layout a few failures are to be expected. I’ve seen it suggested on here to isolate after the points and re-feed the next section via a switch dependant on the point position. This actually makes a lot of sense to me, and would be easily incorporated into my intended signalling system. Any thoughts, please?

Meanwhile, the baseboards are under construction. And the cricket is ruining my nerves........

On 12/07/2019 at 15:20, Flying Pig said:

 

I've had a fiddle with this and by leaving out the bay platform I think you can probably get a third siding in for a bit more shunting fun. 

More shunting fun is always welcome 

On 12/07/2019 at 15:20, Flying Pig said:

 

The front siding is brought near to the edge of the board as a mileage road, with vehicular access imagined to be offscene in front  of it.  Coal would be handled on this road in the absence of a dedicated facility.

 

The rear siding runs alongside a loading bank to a goods shed that is modelled in part relief.  The additional siding also runs next to the loading bank, up to an end dock - somewhere to put CCT tail loads.  

Thank you for the sketch. When it comes to more sidings I am of course open to suggestions. Please excuse my ignorance, but what are CCT loads? 

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Some revisions to the scissors idea:

 

• Got rid of the slips entirely and moved goods yard connection up.
• Slightly longer straight sections through crossing reduce effect of reverse curves a bit more.
• Crossover to trap goods yard properly.
• Short goods headshunt or stub siding.
• Third siding somewhat like Flying Pig's sketch (may or may not be for not end loading),
• One less traverser road but now there's finger room between trains.

Interesting, thank you for this (and also the earlier iteration). If I may ask, what is the colour-coding of the points? I presume red=short, brown=medium, green=long? How would one access the rear siding for (un)loading; via the shed only, or might the rear face of the passenger platform be used in certain circumstances? Bonus points for the trap, it would niggle at me if I had to leave it out. 

7 hours ago, Stubby47 said:

 

I was just hoping to prompt a bit of thought about how the OP would operate, as the track plan was fairly fluid and the question of left v right was raised. The fact you've asked means you are also considering this, so my work is done.

 

(Sorry for the thread hijack).

No apology necessary, it’s absolutely relevant and probably not given enough consideration. 

1 minute ago, Argos said:

 

I was under the impression that it was a board of trade requirement that termini at the end of double track lines had to have two platform faces?

 

No doubt this will prompt a stream of posts showing single platforms at the end of double track lines!

Bring it on, it could be interesting!

On a similar note, i believe at one point (1850s?), termini were required to have a turntable too. When the Thames Haven branch opened, the BoT insisted on a turntable, despite the line only using tank engines. The table only lasted a few years before it was removed. 

19 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Well, for what it's worth, here's the idea that I didn't think you'd like before:

 

 

The idea was to deliberately make it small, simple and a bit quirky: Only handling small trains of two coaches and a small van at the most (the traverser only really allows small trains anyway) and not pushing the tracks out to the very edges, to leave a bit of room to breathe.

 

As I explained above, assuming that the incoming lines are double track then the trailing crossover required to get outgoing traffic onto the correct track can be imaginary and actually implemented by the traverser. This saves space.

 

(Interestingly, the lack of the trailing crossover on scene also allows you to treat the incoming lines as single up/down and headshunt instead if you want.)

 

The splayed run round loop is part of the quirkiness but also helps with run round clearance. Only one platform but you do have a departure bay.

 

You could possibly add a kickback siding to the bottom goods line heading towards the signal box, just to make shunting more difficult and thus operation more "interesting"... ;-)

 

I do like it, and I very much appreciate the effort you went to, so thank you!!  Your plans have a relaxed yet purposeful fluidity that I simply cannot achieve.  But I regret to say, as we discussed before, the off-scene / imaginary "crossover" is a bit too far far for me.  I fully appreciate the reasons for it, but I have an irrational compulsion to keep the throat in its entirety on scene.  I think it's the train disappearing from the scene "wrong-road" that bugs me.

24 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

This is fine, though you would gain a longer runround by using a 'normal' release crossover: it's a wee bit short with the crossover reversed as drawn. I do think the goods yard is a bit anaemic for the size of station.

I've taken some cues from the steam-era layout of Shoeburyness.  The crossover can be seen here:

http://sunnyfield.co.uk/dayspast/view_item.php?ref=tr064&section=Essex 

It was normal practice at Shoeburyness for off-peak trains to terminate in right-hand platform due to the station building being on this side.  During the rush trains would also use the left-hand platform.  Interestingly, in the early days there was no walkway behind the stops.  Passengers needing the L/H platform had to either use the barrow crossing or use a separate access road behind the platform.  I agree that the yard is a bit feeble.

For completeness, Flying Pig's suggestion of a bay connecting opposite the slip.  Much better than my bay behind the main platforms:

But alas, I'm trying not to overcrowd the scene.  As mentioned previously, here's two platform roads with two goods sidings (apologies for the aesthetic crudeness):

The grid squares represent 6".  As drawn, there's about 6" between the goods sidings at the widest point.  I did try spurring the sidings off "the point opposite the slip", but I can't get it very tidy once I've included a trap.  I think this one's my front unless anyone convinces me otherwise.

18 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Unfortunately, standard DIL sockets are ~7.5mm (two spare tracks between) not ~5mm.  Veroboard (at 90 degrees to your photo) is your best bet.

Paul.

P.S. I drill out veroboard holes to 1.5mm to get 16/0.20 wires in. 

How about two single-row versions of something like this? (I did find the single row version, then lost it...)

https://uk.rs-online.com/mobile/p/pcb-sockets/7022959/

Edit: ok, the pin socket size on that example is wrong too, but you get the gist....

Edit 2:  Maybe I’m overthinking it? For me I definitely think veroboard is a good idea, I’m just wondering how much of a pig it will be to swap out a relay when one fails? 

1 hour ago, 61656 said:

Quite a dim star as it turns out. The stock code is 515-587....

noted, thanks

4 hours ago, 61656 said:

 

I’ve been looking around for other options; these relays are very small and fiddly to work with (you need to be soldering 10 fairly chunky wires within 15 x 7mm). So far the test relay has worked well but doesn’t stand up to much physical abuse at all.

 

The spec I’ve looked for needs to be latching, with a coil voltage of 5 or 12V dc, DPDT contacts (forget getting anything with more on) and a switching current of at least 5A. I’m looking at around 40 point ends on the main layout, it should be possible to pair up quite a few ends, but still probably 30 drive relays and 40 polarity switching relays. Much more than £3 a relay and this will get prohibitively expensive.

 

Which always ends up at the relays already identified. I’m thinking the probably solution is to mount them on vero-board, to protect the terminal pins. 

It’s reassuring to see you’re going through the same dilemmas as I am, albeit mine are just an imaginary exercise at this stage. My intended layout is quite modest compared to yours; nine ends, eight of which are double-ended. Even then the number of relays needed for interlocking and point drives amount to a fair few. I considered doing the interlocking electronically via an Arduino (just mimicking the locking of a lever frame), but the inductive point motor loads still require an interface of some sort, rendering the idea a bit pointless. 

I haven’t looked at the pin-out of the relays yet. I wonder whether it would be practical to plug them in to a common IC socket?

51 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

This is good news; a Bachmann chassis will give you pretty good running and will manage with both Code 100 and code 75 rail.  

Good to know, thanks