Will Hay

On 08/01/2021 at 22:47, cambo74 said:

Thank for your help - managed to sort some now 

 

Ben

I know it's an old thread but when searching Google for an answer to a question sometimes this happens.

Don't you love it when a search result directs you to a page, but the answer doesn't include how the resolution was reached?

Cheers, Ben.

<InsertThumbsUpSymbolHere>

Ah, yes, sorry, we've come full circle 

I sometimes struggle with some of the terminology used across forums, but that is/was crystal clear.

Thanks again @Chimer

With the space I have in this location I'm not sure how I can do any better and avoid the obvious pinch-point?

11 minutes ago, Chimer said:

I hate to say this, but the layout in the latest picture does not make it possible to cross from the track second from the left to the one fourth from the left, or vice versa.  Which if I'm not mistaken was the main thing you were wanting to achieve with the original layout using the diamonds?

 

Sorry .....

 

Chris 

No, I know.

The whole purpose of this section is to add variance to my play.

It's not set in stone as I've yet to develop any strategy 

It's since changed from that shown, as a result of @ITG's comment [which mirrors yours].

I'll upload a revised photo later 

4 hours ago, ITG said:

Could you not also move at least some of the other crossovers (on the right hand two lines in your photo) along slightly, so that you could also use my suggestion of one point in the pair being the other hand, so as to smooth the snake effect? I appreciate not all all could be designed that way, as I doubt there’s sufficient space, and then still be able to maintain the sequencing of all the crossovers across all 4 tracks.

Ah, yes.

That did cross my mind when I'd finished to be honest, but I think I was a little wrapped up in the uniformity/how nice it looked.

I'll inevitably make the amendment, I can see the benefit.

Thanks.

Currentky undergoing testing, but looking great so far, especially the end points suggested by @ITG and the revised, overall layout of the section, thanks to @Chimer

Thanks again to all for your contributions.

That's a massive help Chris, sincere thanks.

7 minutes ago, ITG said:

 

What I was suggesting does not involve curved points. Taking the top right crossover as an example what you have is something akin to example A below. You could instead opt for example B, using one point of the opposite hand, which then means you do not have the S bend coming round the curve, and thn through the crossover.

 

 

Gotcha, understood, many thanks.

5 hours ago, ITG said:

It looks like it may be possible to smooth some of the S-snakes by changing the outermost RH/LH points....

4 hours ago, ITG said:

It looks like it may be possible to smooth some of the S-snakes by changing the outermost RH/LH points on the top and bottom lines, for Opposite-hand ones, and moving them out a little so that they are built into the approach curves.Doing so wouldn’t alter the sequencing of the various x-overs but would smooth the entry routes.

Those shown with the black smudge are curves, so I can't extend the conventional points out any further.

I do have some curved points but heard these are troublesome, and not recommended.

I really didn't give them enough testing time to make an informed decision, they're sat around somewhere.

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi Chris / Will - if I’ve got it right, Chimer’s version allows parallel / simultaneous movements: an Up and Down train could pass while changing circuits:*

 

 

No more than 3 of the 8 routes through the junction pass any one part of it (I think).

 

With the “point saver” version, a bottleneck is created that every train changing circuits must pass through:

 

5 of the 8 routes pass through this single spot, while two of the six crossovers need to operate in both directions.

 

Operationally, I wonder if this might cause difficulties for multi-train running?

 

I’d also be inclined to suspect the locomotive. From the video, it looks like you may have at least one other locomotive with the same wheel arrangement as I think I saw a blue LNER A4 (both are 4-6-2 Pacific’s).  If the A4 runs OK, the ‘slowing’ of Tornado would suggest something is catching or sticking over the diamond.

When I had a Setrack layout, the Hornby diamond crossover I had worked fine - it was the points, with moving parts and more delicate rails that gave me the trouble - do bear in mind there’d be a risk if your relaid the track that the problems could get worse, not better.  Just a thought, Keith.

 

(* I found a piece of that special paper Schools use for sending letters home to parents that comes ready crumpled)

 

Ah, yes, of course.

I secretly knew Chimer had it right first time but I certainly couldn't spot it 

In all honesty, I've hit a little bit of a brick wall on one aspect.

I don’t yet have a means to control points automatically, so that's guiding my layout somewhat.

At the minute, nothing is running on more than one loop, so can sometimes be rather 'samey' ['boring' is an incorrect description].

As I outlined to a couple of people way back when I started in and around April time, I'm limited by my imagination/the possibilities available.

I know I have to decide what I want, and what I want is a number of locomotives running all at the same time.

I'm far from adverse to curves, I quite like the beauty of the 'snaking' effect at times.

As for the troublesome Tornado, this thing is a beauty at very, very slow speed on the straights,  but doesn't like the diamonds and occasionally it slows on points.

It's such a shame as I do like it, plus it was a bargain.

I have to add that, somewhat embarrassingly, none of my track is yet secured, as I'm still not 100% happy with the layout.

I accept this might contribute to the problem with the Tornado but given that the rest run fine, it's clearly a locomotive issue.

Any recommendation as to tweaks on layout to gain a particular advantage would be very welcome.

Thanks.

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

Yes, exactly like that, except that you'd have to duplicate the arrangement...

 

 

... and save space by curving one or both sets of tracks away within the same footprint - need some tiny fiddles to make this one fit together properly.  I turned this one upside down too, its closer to your original setup.

 

I've used Peco Set-track points in these diagrams, don't have Hornby parts loaded, but I think the geometry is identical.

 

Cheers, Chris

Hi Chris,

Does the following accomplish the same principle [all tracks serving all lines], albeit with less points than your example?

Thanks,

Rob

4 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The double junctions in your diagram look fine to me for joining tracks running in the same direction.  I don't know why you'd want to change them unless you want to connect every track to every other track, but then you can already do that with the help of the facing crossovers at the ends of the inner and outer pairs of loops.

I like it too, but I have a 2-6-2 [might be a 4-6-2, it's the Tornado, in any case] that doesn't share my love for my current configuration.

Having said that, it's only one of fourteen locomotives [if you don't count the 0-4-0 and my 0-6-0 SWB's] that slows over each diamond so I may retire the Tornado to the ebay graveyard. 

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

• Two lefts, or two rights, back to work would work, with one route straight and a big s-curve in the other one. 
• Using back to back points of any kind also provides you with the crossovers between the blue and yellow tracks which might be an advantage, but you don't seem to want ....

Hello.

Could you kindly expanding on these two points?

Do you mean like so...

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Thank you for sharing the video - photos / videos alway brings a plan to life: you’ve made a lot of Metcalfe kits! (I enjoy making them, but don’t work as quickly as you seem to have been able to).

 

This is the second video I’ve seen in recent days with a coffee cup prominently displayed on a layout: I joked when I saw the first one that I should start including cup holders in any layout plans - maybe we should!

Thanks for this 

Don't be fooled on the kits.

Whilst I absolutely love making them I haven't made all.

I'd guess about 50% were bought from ebay, fully assembled and well made and averaged no more than a fiver each.

The church with custom made steeple was just under nine pounds 

I think I was lucky, I bought two lots of eleven buildings [for approximately fifty pounds each set] but recently ebay prices have gone crazy.

I clearly got in at the right time.

They're an absolute delight to make, my favourite is the esso station, booking hall and department store, all of which were by my fair hand!

Sincere thanks Chimer.

That's a lot to take in for me so I'll study more later tonight.

I'm not adverse to anything, I just want to be able to link the tracks and feel this is the final aspect of the jigsaw.

On 27/10/2020 at 10:12, MiniMan64 said:

Wow, fantastic, what a response! Thank you all. 

 

I see so many amazing proper modelling on here I thought the idea of something very train-setty might be ignored. 

 

You've got the board shape spot on Keith, it was somewhat dictated by the size of wood available from B&Q and the size of the loft hatch if I'm honest. The loft space is good, boarded out and everything, it's not a room per say but we've been using it as a 'play' space for a while, we used to just set loops of track up on the floor. The rolling stock is a motley collection of steam, a large contingent of GWR but also the ever present Scotsman, a treasured but awkward to run City of Chester (first model) and a collection of speedy Hornby 0-4-0's. We don't run massive trains, probably 4 carriages max. 

 

This is the layout as it is now:

 

Hello.

I remember you commenting on my 'trainset' [as in we both want something probably not overly popular here!!!] thread a while back, looking for an update, so here it is

Four loops instead of two but perhaps you can take some inspiration from the following 

Hello.

A bit of an old thread so sorry for that, but I'm nearly there with pinning down after months of playing and testing etc.

I'm having trouble with Hornby diamond crossovers, specifically that just one of my numerous locomotives don't like them.

Can anyone recommend an alternative?

As you can see I have four loops, two are clockwise [3 & 1 in blue] and two are anti-clockwise [4 & 2 in orange].

I want to be able to maintain a link between loop 4 [outer] and 2 and 3 and 1 [inner] with diamond crossings.

A couple of helpful folk have recommended either a couple of Y's toe to toe, or a slip joint.

Despite playing with my track software and looking at countless images on google of real tracks showing the slip joint, I just can't seem to fathom it.

I've posted this on another forum that I've pretty much decided to give up on, so if any of you inhabit both forums and have responded already then I'm sorry.

As far as my layout, the video clip [link below] should give you an idea of where I am so to those that offered invaluable guidance earlier this year; you have my sincere gratitude.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2na7zpy8ox7szr1/20201128_215954.mp4?dl=0

Thank you all.

Righto, understood, thanks again.

Having just looked, 39-253 looks to have much darker window frames than 39-028.

That's wonderful, sincere thanks.

At the risk of appearing stupid, how can you be sure they're an exact match?

For example, the descriptions of 39-053 and 39-153 are slightly different, so how would I know [using the same method for, say, my choc cream set] I'm buying an exact match to compliment those I already have?

Thanks again.

Rob

39-178

39-153

39-253

Those are the three I've bought, and want to add a further two which are appropriate to what would have been expected back in the day.

A method to understand how to determine what goes with what product code would be ideal as, whilst these specific one's are green, I have maroon, choc cream and blood and custard Bachmann sets I'd like to add further coaches to.

Thanks.

Hello.

I contacted Bachmann recently for some help in understanding product codes.

I had assumed a 34 prefix pre-dated a 39, i.e. that the 39 range was a later release, but was wrong.

Bachmann did help, but I'm still a little lost.

For example, I'm about to buy three different BR Mk1 coaches, all with the 39 prefix, but want to add two more but can't figure out which others are in exactly the same range.

Any heads up would be appreciated.

Thanks.

On 17/08/2020 at 09:34, Zomboid said:

Now that's an unusual viewpoint. Most people want their trains to "disappear" to give the illusion of going somewhere. And operating from the middle puts everything within easy reach. But if you don't like it, you don't like it and that's that.

 

Still, I think you could use the "horns" at the top of your new arrangement for parking trains, rather than as blank space.

The horns will eventually consist of terraces, shopfronts, footpaths and roads, but seems a long way off at the minute.