Titanius Anglesmith

On 10/03/2019 at 12:29, Suzie said:

The type shown are quite widely used in industry and can be very reliable when crimped properly. In many industrial applications ferules are crimped on to the ends of stranded wires before being inserted in to screw terminals to improve performance of the screw connection! 

+1, the real railway uses them in abundance 

Naturally the proper ratcheting tool is used, and the crimping dies are checked annually

Stunning. I disagree about the deforestation, I like the trees 

I've not paid much attention to narrow gauge before, but this layout has made me take notice. Simply stunning 

I like the way the water tower is leaking all over the track 

On a serious note, I really like that sketch. Not just for the “technical” aspects, but for the atmosphere it conveys. Very good!

16 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Don't have time to look at the exact sizes but a layout similar to what you are thinking of has recently appeared in the Layout section that you may want to look at where only part of the platform is included

 

 

Thanks, I'll give this a look

20 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Ok, that sounds sensible. If you place a station building at the left hand end of the layout as a view blocker, you can omit the left hand crossover and use a short traverser or cassette for loco release, hidden behind the building.  Trains can then run right up to the end of the layout on arrival and a short passenger train shouldn't look too cramped in the 4 feet of platform you've shown as actually modelled.

 

I'd guess that passenger trains will need to shunt to depart, as the layout isn't locked and signalled for departures from the lower platform. You could always resignal, but it would only reduce the play value.  There won't be that many trains - just the branch service, or a reduced passenger service to a the last station on a route that has been truncated for some reason. I think the latter scenario is better as it gives a reason for the goods to reverse too and not run through to the next large yard. 

 

Below are a couple of ideas based on your plan B2.  The station building is a view blocker on the left and on the right, the end of a large goods shed on a loop is used. Both sidings continue into the fiddle yard - I don't know how or if that will play with your need to turn through 90°. I've used large radius points on the Anyrail plan, so the new bullhead range would fit. I've also extended the trap siding to form a short dock of some sort - quite a common Midland feature.

 

To be honest, while this would probably make a convincing scene as a slice of a wayside station, it provides only about the same operating potential as a simple branch terminus and probably less conveniently.

 

 

 

Thanks, Flying Pig.  That's the sort of thing I was imagining.  I like the use of the station building as a view block.

I'd guess that passenger trains will need to shunt to depart, as the layout isn't locked and signalled for departures from the lower platform. You could always resignal, but it would only reduce the play value.  There won't be that many trains - just the branch service, or a reduced passenger service to a the last station on a route that has been truncated for some reason. I think the latter scenario is better as it gives a reason for the goods to reverse too and not run through to the next large yard. 

In this plan, I'm in two minds about having a wrong-road starter and FPL'ing the crossover (economical, of course), or shunting ECS from one road to the other.  Like you say, both prototypical.... six of one, half-dozen of the other.  As much as I like the goods shed on the loop, it's not absolutely essential; there were of course lots of dead-end sidings on the railway.  I like the dock leading from the double-slip too, my local station had that feature too.

I agree that the plan doesn't offer anything more than a BLT, but I'm not expecting anything more from a layout this size (that is, without going to a shunting or industrial setting). 

15 hours ago, Zomboid said:

See, I interpret that as "all the fun of a BLT, without being a cliché".

I haven't been here long enough to get away with saying such controversies, but.............

10 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Edit:  I can't figure out how to get rid of that empty quote above

What a brilliant concept, and that track plan! Lots of goods workings, lots of shunting....... right up my boulevard 

Watching with interest

15 hours ago, HAB said:

 

Personally, I would build the layout first!!

 

There is more detail on page 36, but here is a copy of one of those photos showing the test frame:-

 

The locks are made using custom-designed etches, home-made PCBs and utilise standard Omron power relays, slightly over-voltaged to provide the umph. They come in various varieties to give the different kinds of lock we need. (combinations of Normal, Reverse, and "Backlock" positions). It has to be said that providing an electrically operated physical lock on levers as small as these (10mm pitch) is by no means easy - particularly making them 110% reliable. We are only doing the locks from the track circuits and block instruments this way yet it still requires around 80 relays just for the 70 lever frame at Junction which has 30 electricly locked levers. If we were trying to do the whole lot electrically we would need another shed to house it all in! 

 

Not only that, but each electric lock requires an "Economiser" plunger - like these:-

Which means yet more work for an all-electric solution!

Based on my (fairly extensive!) experience so far, for frames (say up to 75 levers) such as these, mechanical locking  is much "easier" to accomplish than relay locking (not least because of the need to explicitly provide all the reciprocals with a relay design) and if building mechanical locking is beyond one's skillset, or for anything much bigger, I would go a software route - not least because mods are easy!   With the advent of Raspberry Pi with cheap-as-chips interface boards, software solutions are pretty simple these days.

 

BUT there is a bottom line here - complex problems are hard work to solve - no matter how you go about it!  You got to ENJOY this kind of nonesense - which I do: it is just the right combination of intellectual challenge and bright shiny metal!

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

What a magnificent reply, thank you!!

How clever to repurpose a relay mechanism, that's not what I expected at all. My own (rather more agricultural) ideas revolved around having a solenoid whose armature is received by a hole in the tappet (for want of a better term) attached to the lever. 

Based on my (fairly extensive!) experience so far, for frames (say up to 75 levers) such as these, mechanical locking  is much "easier" to accomplish than relay locking (not least because of the need to explicitly provide all the reciprocals with a relay design) and if building mechanical locking is beyond one's skillset, or for anything much bigger, I would go a software route - not least because mods are easy!

It's been many years since I touched a mechanical frame whereas relay and solid state interlocking is my daily bread and butter. That's my excuse for wimping out on a fully mechanical frame and going electric. As you say, the ease of modding software is a nice safety net. 

Personally, I would build the layout first!!

Yes, that would be a good idea 

Thanks again for the reply, most interesting 

38 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Sorry , should have looked at your (perfectly clear BTW) Anyrail plans. To be honest I think you will struggle to fit a double track passing station and goods yard into the space you have. Even if you treat Plan B2 as a bitsa and continue the sidings offscene, the platform is very short (and I think crossover 7 should probably be in advance - i.e. to the left - of starter 13, which consumes even more length) and the result will probably look cramped.

 

 

Thanks Flying Pig. Just to be clear, I never expected to model the whole platform, just enough to run a branch train or the local goods into. However if you still think it's too short to do anything useful with then I'll go back to the drawing board. 

With regards to the crossover, I don't think it was that uncommon to see it in between the platforms. It would have to be protected by the home though instead of the starter. It would of course be towards the end of the platform not the middle. I'll see if I can find a prototypical example before I stick my neck out on that though. 

32 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Minories allows for more simultaneous movements whereas with your current designs trains have to enter platform 2 or the goods yard and have to cross over and set back into Platform 1 before anything else can enter.

 

Platform 1 is a bit of a white elephant because you are avoiding facing crossovers - correct for double track but not very helpful for a terminus.

 

Yes Minories allows for simultaneous movements, but my point was how often is it actually operated like that, apart from at exhibitions with several operators?

I agree that Pl1 is superfluous in a modelling sense as I can't run a "through" train through it. However I cite KNP's Encombe Town as precedent!  

19 hours ago, shortliner said:

 

Just a small thought - as you suggest, add an overbridge at the left, but pt a mirror at the end of the track and you'll (apparently) extend your layout - just make sure that you get the mirror at a 90° angle to the track and it will go on into the distance - especially if you can get a front-silvered mirror.

That's a very clever idea   I've seen it used to great effect in gardens, and even in Ally Pally.  Might give the loco driver a bit of a shock as he enters the platform though

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Hi,

I wonder if it’s worth modelling double track if the station could only be operated as single? Obviously the reason for double track is to allow traffic to pass unhindered but because the station is actually a terminus one train would always have to move across to the other track before another could approach. Thus the double track is only really in use by one train at a time - so more like a single track in reality... Does that make sense?

 

There’s a reason why people model termini as termini.

 

I notice that there’s very little room for the loco between the “buffers” and the crossover. If the station were modelled as a terminus (and I understand why you might be trying to avoid that!) then Collett's observations about prototype traversers and sector plates come into play but they don’t apply to through stations - unless you used a small off scene traverser on the left to avoid/replace the on scene loco release crossover, which could be quite clever!

 

Is the fiddle yard joined to the front of the 8ft boards or the end? I.e. is the total length 8ft or 9ft6in - 10ft? Have you thought about the curve needed to go around the corner?

Hi Phil, thank you for your reply.  Sorry I can't figure out how to split the quote up, so......

Thus the double track is only really in use by one train at a time - so more like a single track in reality... Does that make sense?

Perfect sense.  But how many end to end layouts are operated as one-engine-in-steam, even multi-platform termini like Minories?  I don't really see that as an affront to reality.  My local station* on the LT&SR was built as double track but initially only saw a 1hr 30min frequency.  The line's terminus at Shoeburyness was built with two platforms, but only one was generally used (it now has three!).  Conversely, I wonder how many BLT layouts are pictured with a train in the platform, another in the bay, and a third shunting the yard...?

I notice that there’s very little room for the loco between the “buffers” and the crossover.

Noted, should be easy enough to correct.  Or use the off-scene traverser as also suggested.

Is the fiddle yard joined to the front of the 8ft boards or the end? I.e. is the total length 8ft or 9ft6in - 10ft? Have you thought about the curve needed to go around the corner?

Sorry I didn't put that very clearly.  Joined to the end, to make 10ft (the fiddle board can be a little wider than the scenic boards that way round).  I think a 2nd radius curve will just fit? 

*Curiously enough, the layouts I proposed earlier are very similar to my local station (before '60s rationalisation), even though I never meant them to be.  I guess it goes to show that when we design a layout to achieve certain aims, we shouldn't be surprised if we reach the same conclusions that the real railway did

4 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

If you move crossover 8 on plan B2 to the right and use a single slip to connect to the dead end of the siding as in plan B1, you'll have achieved peak Midland wayside station. 

 

Many thanks for your reply, Flying Pig. Funnily enough I tried that on anyrail this morning, for the exact reason of it being quintessentially Midland. Unfortunately though, even if the running line end of the crossover is at the very edge of the board, it still only leaves something like 6" of siding between the points. I'm very glad to see that I'm thinking on the right lines though!!

i have an extreme lack of confidence with Anyrail, and very little experience with model railways. So if anyone can create a similar plan with more elegance than my ham-fisted fumblings, I'd be most grateful!

Good afternoon All,

Although I find the Piano Line discussion very interesting, I'm still not convinced that it's what I want right now.  At least, not yet......

Until recently my sole knowledge of model railways was my late Dad's layout; a permanent, built-in behemoth.  It's come as a bit of a revelation that a layout can also be built across several modular boards and moved when necessary.  With that in mind, I think I can manage two scenic boards at 4' x 18" each.  That would however mean that the fiddle board would have to turn a right angle to form an "L".  With the extra length to play with I'm considering my original idea again, a two-track through station with goods yard, but operated like a BLT (i.e. it's the "other" end of a branch service).

I've knocked up these crude drawings of what I imagine, plus an attempt at Anyrail.  Essentially the two plans are the same, just with the direction of the sidings reversed.  I imagined ending the platforms being truncated at the left hand end to suggest something longer, perhaps using the passenger overbridge as a scenic break.  I can live with the crossover being modelled "mid" platform rather than off-scene where it belongs.  Please take the signalling with a pinch of salt, I was just getting carried away!  

Any thoughts please?  I am acutely aware that it's too easy to try and cram too much in.

29 minutes ago, HAB said:

 

 

 

Just the electric locks to fit and wire, then we can play trains...  Luckily there are only 10 of them on this frame, but 30-odd at Junction!

 

Best Wishes,

 

 

That frame really is a work of art, very impressive!!

If I may be so bold to ask, how do you intend to make the electric locks? When I eventually build my layout I intend to signal it from a frame, but cheat by locking it electrically (à la Westinghouse L Style). I trained on mechanically-locked frames many moons ago, but since then all I've touched is relay-interlocking and solid state....... 

2 hours ago, south_tyne said:

 

 

Enjoying this discussion but sorry if it has strayed a little from the original question. 

David

 

No need to apologise, I'm enjoying the discussion 

Following with interest - your scenic work is stunning

On 19/02/2019 at 16:27, Poggy1165 said:

The first question to ask is whether you are mainly interested in passenger trains or goods trains. If passenger, the Minories concept is hard to beat. If goods, then maybe some simple (relatively) goods yard where you can shunt wagons in and out of assorted sidings. If you want a mixture of both, then a branch terminus takes some beating. 

 

 

On 19/02/2019 at 16:43, Poggy1165 said:

Another option in the space would be an engine shed. Like this one for example. 7mm scale, but in a very modest space. 

On 20/02/2019 at 16:52, tractionman said:

 

I've something similar in mind, Barnoldswick as an LMS BLT--I have a 6' by 2' board which will accommodate the goods yard and station, with a handy overbridge at one end for the scenic break.

 

cheers,

 

Keith

Afternoon All,

Sorry for my late response. I've been waiting for a chance to reply from a real computer, as I struggle to post from my phone. Alas, the wait continues....

Anyhow, thank you for the replies. With regards to operation, I prefer shunting but would like a limited passenger operation too. I find Minories is visually very impressive but I don't think I'd enjoy the operation. I dislike push-pulls (too much like running the EMUs I see all day long!) so that means having a run-around. 

Im intrigued by the piano line, but to my untrained eye it looks very unprototypical. Can anyone cite a real world example? It's piqued my interest nonetheless. 

Ive been following the Barnoldswick thread; it's an interesting track plan but I wouldn't be able to model the coal yard, which for me is fundamental to the character.  I look forward to seeing your interpretation. 

I have got a simple track track plan in mind; I've sketched it in Microsoft Paint (about the limit of my CAD skills. I've tried Anyrail without much joy). Next time I'm on a PC I'll try to upload it. 

Thanks!

Amazing!

That weathering is amazing!

All hail the Hypnotoad!

On ‎18‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 10:50, OhOh said:

Might be worth taking a look at 'piano line' type layouts discussed here. That'd give you something on which to run some short trains using tank engines, but probably not big enough for tender loco's. 18-24inches is a bit wider than you need for the piano set-up, so you could maybe use the extra space for some sort of MPD to accommodate your larger loco's. 

 

Hope that helps a little.

12 hours ago, south_tyne said:

 

Another vote for the piano line concept. Originally I think it was designed for a length of around 150cm but the extra space you have will suit the plan better and allow for longer points and sidings/headshunts. Definitely worth a look. 

 

David

Thank you for the suggestions.  I've not come across a piano line before, so I'm not sure I understand the concept?  I will have a read of that thread, hopefully it will shed some light....

On ‎18‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 10:59, Stubby47 said:

For quality layouts in a small area, you could take a look at Rob Gunstone's collection of small layouts (all Sheep orientated... don't ask...)

 

As an example : Mutton

 

and Bleat Wharf

I've been keeping an eye on Bleat Wharf for some time, Rob's scenic work is nothing short of amazing.  I wasn't aware of Mutton until now though.  I've just read through that thread and I'm very impressed by what has been done with the space; quite inspiring.  On a side note, I'm developing quite a soft spot for that Adams Radial.  Dad has / had one in LSWR green but I think I prefer it in BR black. 

On ‎18‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 11:05, Karhedron said:

Does it need to be a through-station and can you squeeze in an extra foot? Cyril Freezer's classic "Minories" is about 7-feet long for the scenic section in 00 gauge I think. The basic layout is passenger-only but the Mk2 version includes a goods shed.

It never occurred to me to do a Minories.  I'm not sure it's the kind of operation that I want (i.e. loco A arrives with train, loco B takes the train back out, and so on), but it does demonstrate how platforms of a half-decent length can still be modelled in a small space.  I think that's my biggest concern; a two-track station with two 12" platforms would look silly.

Thank you for the replies so far, you've got me thinking!

Greetings all,

This is my first post here and I come seeking your sage wisdom. I have a little experience with my father's layout but otherwise I'm a complete beginner (having said that I do have a background in signalling on a "real" railway........  )

Sadly my dad passed away late last year and left his (eye-wateringly vast ) OO layout and collection to my brother and I. Dad was unashamedly interested in anything from pre-grouping steam to BR diesels, and had no qualms about buying and running a loco just because he liked it. However my childhood memories are rooted in a mainly Midland Railway / LMS layout, so that is where my main interest lies. 

I would like to build a layout of my own so that Dad's railway can live on in some small way.  To begin with I can allocate 6' x 18"-24" for the scenic area; I may be able to extend that later.  I appreciate that it's not a huge space.  Originally I was thinking about a simple shunting layout (e.g. inglenook), but I wonder if I can fit a small BLT into that space?  My ideal would have been a simple two-track through station with goods siding(s) (which certainly seems fore Midland-ish), but beggars can't be choosers.  One potential idea was to just model the end of a through station and operate it like a terminus.  In case I haven't described that very clearly I intend to upload a few sketches of what I mean.

So what say you expert railway builders; shunting-only, BLT or "through-station" terminus?  Any advice on what to start with would be appreciated.  To summarise,

1.  6' x 18-24" scenic area 
2. Must be OO gauge so that I can use Dad's stock.  I know that N would offer more opportunities in the space but buying more stock would defeat the object.
3. Doesn't have to be modelled on a particular prototype (Dad's certainly wasn't), but I'd at least like something plausible.  As I see this as a continuation of what Dad started, I'm calling this Rule 1A:  Dad's railway!
4. I intend to run Midland Railway / LMS stock.  I can live with branch-sized trains of a coach or two pulled by a tank, but I would like to use an 0-6-0 tender loco on the goods so the run-around has to take that into account (I guess the Beyer Garrett's out of the question.........)

I am confident with woodwork, metalwork and electrickery so I'm not too fazed by that side of things.  I'll need some guidance on the scenery when the time comes.

Thank you in advance!