Golden Eagle

5 hours ago, Legend said:

thanks for that . I had ordered them on release then cancelled . Now regretting it I’ve just preordered the above models . If I end up with a 5 car Coronation so be it , but will keep eye out for R40225/6 

Can be searched, found and pre-ordered at both Rails and Kernow, if that’s of any use?

Oh well…thought they might due Union of South Africa in its original Garter Blue as an easy win to complement the forthcoming Coronation carriages…guess I shall have to acquire then muster the courage to renumber Empire of India…

Four for me…
my childhood Silver Fox in original livery and my sister’s Mallard in blue.

Golden Eagle in lined green and Silver King in the original silver grey.

Would like to add a Coronation A4, preferably Union of South Africa in steel-lettered coronation blue livery. For purely sentimental reasons, I could imagine one or other Dominion being added to that…

On 19/12/2023 at 22:01, Opelsi said:

Received over the last few days both 'Dominion of Canada' and 'Empire of India' from Hornby, so it looks like these could all be out now, I guess including this mentioned version of 'Commonwealth of Australia'.

On a personal note, just awaiting a version of 'Union of South Africa' (though not in BR late crest) now and I'll have the full set!

 

Likewise, hoping for a “Union of South Africa” in original “Coronation” livery to match the coaches for which I finally gave in and preordered!

Either that or I’m going to have to give in and progress from being a “cheque-book” modeller to actually building and painting one myself…

6 hours ago, gwrrob said:

 

Land of hope and glory please Sir.

Written a mere 298 years after the Union of the Crowns or 194 years after the Union of Parliaments, I fear you may be conflating “English” and “British”.

By all means adopt “Jerusalem”…of which the first verse asks fours questions, for each of which the answer is an unequivocal “No!”.

(That said, I’d be delighted if Scotland replaced “Flower of Scotland” with the far more positive (and tuneful!) “Scotland the Brave”.)

6 minutes ago, rapidoandy said:

Unfortunately we don't help in this regard - our direct customers receive parcels wrapped in Rapido Trains UK tape! :-)

 

Andy

Have to confess that, on seeing the tape, I did have a "But I haven't ordered anything!" moment...until I actually got into the box! A very welcome surprise!

Fantastic news! Might get my early Xmas present to myself before Xmas after all! 😀

21 hours ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

Hall sensors

 

I have looked on ebay with the selection MAGNETIC HALL SENSOR  and all sorts of things come up. 

 

I am not an electronics expert, what I am looking for is a device which I can stick up through the baseboard and it makes a single pole circuit when a north (or south) magnet passes over. I don't really want to have to make up boards from components - I would like a ready made selection but I have absolutely no idea what I'm looking at when I look at ebay.

 

Help please

 

Paul

Then you need two Reed switches.

If your locomotive turns around, PaulRhB and KevinLMS’ suggestion of putting a magnet at the side of the locomotive and positioning one Reed switch on either side of the track and triggering your effects depending on which switch activates.

If your train shuttles back and forward without turning, you need to watch the order in which the Reed switches close.

The former is straightforward. The latter is not complex, but would require some basic electronic design and construction skills (or use of something like an Arduino microcontroller…though that would (IMO) be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut).

Prompted by Hornby’s Cornonation set and it’s beavertail observation car:

How was the observation car turned between journeys? Was it taken off to the nearest turntable?

6 hours ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

 

Sorry to be thick, but I don't understand the answer.

Sorry!

There are two types of magnetic switch (that I know of!). One is the Reed switch. As you know, this simply closes a mechanical connection in the presence of a magnetic field. It responds best to a parallel magnetic field and cannot distinguish between north and south poles of a magnet, so you can’t use one Reed switch to tell you which way a train is running.

With a small number of extra components you could set up two Reed switches and trigger your effects depending on whether switch A closes before Switch B (travel is in one direction) or Switch B closes before Switch A (travel is in the other direction).

The other type of magnetic switch is a “Hall-effect sensor”. These usually respond to the presence of a “south pole”, but you can get sensors which activate in the presence of a north pole. That would allow you to set up the locomotives as you describe, with a magnet oriented according to the direction of travel. 

Another way which might work (if you use analogue controls without an HF track cleaner) would be to measure the voltage across the rails. Positive is one direction, negative the other. A single Reed switch then triggers the relevant effect. Again, this comes down to how confident you feel about designing and building electronic circuits.

Reed switches are not pole-specific, however Hall-effect sensors are (and come in both “south-sensing” and (less commonly) “north-sensing” versions). Depending on how good you are with electronics, you could try those, or (possibly easier) place a pair of Reed switches separated by a short distance and observe in which order they operate (which would also have the advantage that you’re not committed to running the same loco in the same direction every time.

1 hour ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

Hopefully I'm not too late to the party....

Not... quite...too late...Baseboards are sealed, built and mounted on frames, all the track is laid out and I glued down the cork for the links between between shed, terminus and (future) main lines...this afternoon. (Glued cork shown below in blue). I adopted the advice above and have simply used the main lines between shed and station.

I don't think I've got the length to be able to bring the carriage headshunt back into the main lines without doing something odd in the tunnel in the top left corner. However, I could move the connection into the pilot siding into the headshunt/carriage sidings (green) to get rid of the specific facing point which you highlighted.

End-loading platforms can be added "south" of platform 3 (I've shown two, but suspect one would be sufficient(?). Alternatively maybe a second end-loading platform would provide somewhere for the station pilot without the need for a dedicated siding?

The loco coal trains I plan to run into and out of the shed will be 12x 20t wagons but my thoughts are to deliver them directly into the shed from the Down line (empties heading Up) without needing to shunt them via the terminus.

While I might be able to change the point at the end of platform one for a double-slip onto platform two and thus provide access from both platforms to a "right-shifted" coach headshunt and sidings, I can't see a way (within the available space and geometry) of giving platform 3 that access without the need for ECS shunts along the departure mainline, then back into platform 2, which feels "clunky"...

12 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Where do the trains go when they have left the station?

A fair point. If I had not made it clear above, this is one "module" of a larger layout. So far, the MPD exists and has been built. This is the next module. Ultimately this terminus will feed into (at least) a circuit/out-and-back, probably with a through station and (hopefully) with some other areas of interest as space/time allow.  

So...24h later than planned, courtesy of work...

Terminal flipped around the N-S axis, dedicated roads to MPD scrapped and carriage sidings moved to the north. Engines will simply run down the main line to a turnout to the MPD (not shown). Slip allows access from carriage sidings to any platform and (I think) is the fastest way to clear the platforms and keep the Up and Down mainlines clear. The alternative would be to use the "Down" mainline as the carriage headshunt, reverse the slip, join Up and Down lines somewhere else...and it probably could be done, but the pointwork gets quite messy.

In short, I'm back to almost the original Minories track plan, with some carriage sidings bolted on...

One thing I have left off iis the headshunt which Minories had coming off the track to Platform 3 (the short one). Was there a prototypical purpose for that? Or was it to add operating interest?

It has just occurred to me that the simple way to put the MPD up the line would be to turn the terminus around to face west…(morning coffee has apparently reached the synapses!).

I shall have a further play with SCARM this evening.

….in aid of which: would engines moving to and from the shed do so on the main lines, or would they be diverted onto parallel roads as quickly as possible to keep the mainline clear for traffic?

Thanks to all for the input - sorry for the slow response. Small matter of "job". I shall try to summarise and address points which have been raised. Apologies that I can't work out how to attribute different quotes to their authors.

On 20/09/2021 at 21:49, Harlequin said:

1) ...the double slip causes a very sudden deviation for the route into platform 1 because it is nominally a 2ft radius part. That's a shame because I can see you've used Medium radius (nominally 3ft) turnouts elsewhere...Many of your Medium radius turnouts could be replaced by Large radius versions

That's certainly possible - I've replaced the double slip with back-to-back turnouts and mediums with large throughout (with the exception of a single medium three-way needed to access the carriage sidings. However, it does move the carriage headshunt and sidings significantly to the "east" - something which I can't see any other way to fix while preserving a "single move from any platform to headshunt".

Quote

2) I would ask you what you plan to use the siding adjacent to the top platform for?

As with the original Minories, for a station pilot. That said, see 4) below

Quote

3) why does the carriage head-shunt not bend left instead of being straight?

4) Your engine shed track seems an excessively long way out of the station. The short spur not joining it seems odd. I say that as it seems at first look to be the wrong side for the carriage sidings shunter to lurk and adding the link allows two routes for light engines going on/off shed to pass

3) Because I spotted that an instant after I uploading the sketch! I fixed it, but forgot to edit my post.

4) The short spur was retained from the original Minories trackplan. It didn't occur to me to link it to the MPD track. I have done so in the new sketch, along with adding links from the MPD to mainlines for delivery of coal (which I had not shown previously). I have, however, preserved the option of an loco being able to arrive from the MPD, then back into any platform with a move west-to-east, then one move back east-to-west to whichever platform (whereas without the equivalent of the original link, four moves are required to get to Platforms 2 + 3). If not working with carriages, the pilot can still sit in the former spur while locomotives moving to and from MPD can bypass into the main station throat.

Quote

5) The pointwork could be simpler if P1 was only for departures. The route from Inbound to P1 would not be needed and so the double slip could become a single. But that then might lead to further revisions because it would make more sense for the carriage sidings to be on the outbound side and the slip crossing would then not be needed at all...

The carriages need to be able to be moved from (any) arrival platform to sidings, then back to (any) departure platform. As planned, this move to the headshunt is a single move from any platform. To put the carriages on the other side of the station would push the turmout into the carriage sidings a long way "east"... As it is, if I revert to a double-slip instead of the 3-way turmout, it will save 27cm of east-west length, which may be important (as I have maximum length of 5m to work with, but that also needs to accommodate a hard-right turn to bring the main-lines round through roughly 135deg (see below)

Additionally, you'll notice additional track between main lines and the MPD access roads. One of my intended moves is the delivery of a rake of 12 coal wagons (and general stores) to and from the MPD while staying out of the "station" tracks.

Quote

but I agree that having the engine shed beyond the station seems very odd.

Quote

That was my first thought too.  It would be useful to see how the two modules fit the OP's available space, because if there's any way the shed can be relocated on the approach to the terminus that would be a much more typical arrangement.

Probably not possible to relocate the MPD (aka I've already built it and really don't want to have to scrap that work unless there's an overwhelming reason to do so!). Perhaps a hazard of starting work before the plan was finalised, but I wanted to build something during lockdown!). I've put a sketch here of the overall concept, The space is constrained by a door immediately adjacent to the turntable and by another door adjacent to the "north east" corner. The (very crude) plan for a triangular "running track" is roughly what I think the Domestic Authorities will permit...I may have to accept lack of reality as the penalty for not having quite thought things through before I started building...

Plotting everything out did demonstrate that I'd probably  be better flipping the trackplan so that the throat is angled south rather than north. (or maybe angle the station so that the track runs more east/west...)

I hesitate to start my own thread on a Minories-inspired layout, but equally feel  grossly unqualified to intrude on the "Theories..." thread (which I am gradually digesting!). Having built my MPD during lockdown (at least as far as having all the track laid, points wired, 4-lane engine shed build and turntable motorised...then had to suspend progress for household renovation, I finally have my space back again and am beginning to plan the next phase as a "winter project".

My current thinking is that this will be a terminus, serviced by the MPD (which sits against the adjacent wall, perpendicular to the proposed axis of this terminus).

1. Era is LNER "Streamliners" (Unoriginal, but get given a Silver Fox aged 10(?), subsequently a Mallard, leave them in a box for 25y with no preventative maintenance when studying/"adulting", eventually have one's stored model railway evicted from one's parents' house, discover the locos still run...what else to do?)
2. Formations will be A4 + 5 coaches (would like more, but space is not (entirely) unlimited and there are other things I want to do with the layout!)
3. The "Up" and "Down" mainlines will (probably, eventually) feed into an oval with off-scene storage loops.
4. Platforms are representative (using the Hornby platforms in SCARM for ease of use - my intent is to have the "noses" conform rather better to the tracks.
5. Rather than run-arounds at the platforms to release the newly arrived locomotive, a station pilot (J72) will clear the rakes via a long headshunt, into carriage sidings (to the "south" of the terminus), after which the A4 can move via a separate headshunt to the MPD (east/west track to the north of the terminus).

Is this remotely close to how such a terminus might have operated? (Although priority is operational enjoyment)

FWIW, I have gone through exactly the process over recent weeks, building a MPD using PM1s, Hornby switches and a Gaugemaster controller for exactly the same nostalgic reasons you describe! (A bank of Hornby switches is what my grandfather had, so is clearly the "right" way to go about it)

As others have mentioned, the SEEPs are incredibly fussy about positioning and orientation. Normal turnouts are bad enough - double slips are a nightmare (as threads which I subsequently found had previously noted!) - I have managed to make one double-slip work...a second I have given up on (after having honeycombed the bottom of the baseboard trying to fix the motor in a position that it works) - I'm going to put surface mounted motors on that double slip!

However, there are some points that I want to move as a pair (and in the case of my three-way, the need to be able to fire both motors at the same time to move directly from left-to-right and vice versa). There wasn't enough "oomph" for this from my controller. I picked up an RK cdu1 CDU kit for less than £5 delivered. It took <10min to build and recharges fast enough that moving the Hornby switch requires only a brief pause in the centre of the movement. It has a helpful LED which illuminates when charged.

Not sure how long the Peco CDU should take to charge, but various threads suggested that it was a bit gutless...and the RK unit was significantly cheaper.

Anyway...(and forgive me if this is teaching you to suck eggs)...how do you plan to test your AC outlet?

Simply plugging a multimeter into your AC outlet will (probably) show 16V AC as there is no load drawing current. (If you're not getting 16V AC, you've found your problem). If the SEEPs are drawing more current than the unit can supply, this will drop the voltage as current flows...however, using a momentary switch, the time for which the current flows is so short that you're unlikely to see the effect on a digital meter (on an analogue, you might see some deflection of the needle).  If you don't use a momentary switch, you will see any drop in output voltage...but risk burning out the solenoid.

I've just measured the resistance of some spare SEEPS - the coils are ~2ohms, so you're looking at drawing (roughly) 8A and needing to dissipate around 128W, so simply wiring in a small 2ohm resistor (typically <0.5W) will fry the resistor in very short order. I'm guessing that if you didn't have a multimeter, you're unlikely to have high power resistors sitting around...

(If anyone does know an easy way to test the 16V AC power outlet, please educate me!)

Having just built a Metcalfe water tower (PO227), I am curious what the "room" under the similar water tanks would have been used for. Would this typically be office space, plumbing, pump room for topping up the tank...?

There's no bug in Anyrail - I get the same with SCARM. The problem is that most of the lower half of the outer curve is built from 2nd radius curves, while the upper half is built from 3rd radius and, while the inner fork of the turnout is 2nd radius,  the outer fork is tighter than 3rd radius (444mm rather than 505mm radius).

There may be enough "wiggle room" in the track and couplers to bring the track ends together. If not, my "fix" would be to replace the R610/R607 or ST203/ST226 between the point and 3rd radius curve with a suitable length of flex-track (R621 or SL100).

20 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

I'm sure I saw a reference to locos being stabled nose-in at Ferryhill when I was looking for information the other day, but I can't refind it.  It would make sense, as the shed faced north and most engines would be waiting to take up southbound workings.

"Scottish Region Engine Sheds: 61 Group" certainly has a picture of a pair of A4s "nose-to-nose" in the Ferryhill repair shed. However, I have a feeling that aesthetics may ultimately take precedence over prototypical stabling (though it is good for that to be a conscious decision rather than one arrived at through ignorance!)

20 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

The shed roads do dual duty for servicing and stabling, so your green siding is unnecessary.  If standing space was tight, perhaps more uncovered roads in front of the shed would be added?  Dont forget @The Stationmaster's reference to sidings for stores.

With my "fleet" as it is (and "investment" in the short-to-medium term almost certainly being on track and scenery, I suspect I'm OK for standing space. I can sneak a short siding in to the south of the shed as an additional stores road or to hold @TheSignalEngineer's dead/withdrawn engine.

20 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Also you seem to have sand and water set up as facilities on their own road like the coal stage.  Wouldn't water cranes among the stabling roads and sand distributed in a bucket be more likely?

Water cranes amongst the stabling roads is a given. I was thinking of a further water crane in the central area for use by locomotives which came in for turning only and did not visit the shed. If sand would be normally distributed by bucket, then I shall seek out some appropriately sculpted "men of the sheds" carrying such. That would allow the sand house to go anywhere convenient, as long as there is track for sand to be delivered  (I note that the Leamington sandhouse had its own short siding, presumably for delivery by wagon.)

20 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Not sure what the leftmost crossover from the yellow siding adds operationally - things seem a bit busy in that area.

That was suggested as a "through road" to the TT, keeping clear of the sheds and the "service" roads for water and sand. I agree that it seems busy and I probably don't need both, though I was thinking of losing the middle crossover - once I've got the baseboards built, I may lay out both options and decide which I prefer. Retaining the middle track and removing the left would allow a longer "yellow" siding, for whatever benefit that might have...

@TheSignalEngineer for my education - why do you prefer the ash pit on the TT side of the coaling stage? Does the sequence of coaling and dropping ash matter?

I remain grateful for everyone's time and willingness to share knowledge! Happy New Year to you all!

...and the good advice continues!

1) Re: shed "open at both ends": good point, well made...and probably a consequence of "copying other people's plans" without thinking them through!

2) Yes - the in/out diamond needs to be a double-slip. No idea how that...um..."slipped" past me!

3) Had to think about your "one in the pit" comment, until I realised that you weren't talking about ash pits anymore and the penny dropped (but better the penny than a locomotive!). Mike suggested converging all routes onto a single road to the TT. I can see the advantage of that allowing a locomotive to pass along ash pits, coaling...and then get out again if the TT was unservicable but another locomotive had pulled in behind. Would it be reasonable to connect the west end of the "ash siding" in to the end of the coaling road (as shown in the current draft)? I like the idea of leaving ash wagons there most of the time, but moving them if needed (e.g. for turntable failure or to allow for delivery of coal wagons - I've left the start of this road coming off the entrance road as I anticipate delivering a rake of 12 coal wagons, for which I need the equivalent length of two quad ST straights. However, I've moved the coaling headshunt south so that the yard pilot can actually back the wagons into that siding without having to pull back into the main in/out roads.

4) Both you and the Stationmaster suggested stabling the breakdown crane alongside the shed (the Stationmaster had this siding doing double-duty as a stores road). Would the crane just be shunted out of the way when stores were being delivered? Alternatively, there is now space for a dedicated siding for the crane, running parallel to the ash road (shown in yellow). Is there a prototypical reason for the crane to be stabled alongside the shed?

5) Does it matter which way locomotives enter the shed? (Almost all pictures I have found seem to show them "nose out", though that could be because the view is more photogenic!) Would a locomotive back into the shed, have the necessary work done, come out, be turned and then "parked" in a siding (perhaps a second head-shunt (green)?) while waiting for its next duty?

6) Am I right in thinking the engine shed floor consists mainly of inspection pits, in addition to those outside? (Thinks: why do something outside in the rain if it could be done inside under a roof...?)

31 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

Deffo' put the inspection pits on the east end of the shed and they do not need to be deep. Think rails at chest level on Mr Average and limboing under the engine. Ash pits right to the coal stage, one long pit, the man filling the tubs would not put much coal in the pit. It was b----- hard work and they were not daft men.  If you have the room I would bring the three tt roads into one before the tt  giving  one engine length before going onto the tt. I like the idea of 6 wagons on the coal stage  4/5 being visible 1/2 inside being emptied and 1/2 empty on the "downward" side.

Hi Mike - yes - that's exactly the idea for the coal ramp. I saw some suggestions about using a servo to move a pin up and down as an "axle brake" which would allow me to roll the wagons back down the slope one axle at a time. I might even "unload" the coal from the "empty" wagons using a magnet on the end of a "fishing rod" (suspending disbelief for the necessary manoeuvre!)

Converging the TT roads into a single length adds about 60cm to the length of the plan, which is not impossible, but eats up a lot of the available "free" space to the right. That's something I could do in the future once I've worked out how much of that I need for whatever I do with the rest of the layout!

East-sited inspection pits and long ashpits to the coal stage it is! 

4 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

The general layout looks quite similar to Aberdeen Ferryhill.  Alternatively, Dundee might be worth looking at.  Arranging it with the headshunt (east end) at the narrow and of the layout and the entrance/exit roads disappearing behind the shed at the right might hide less of the action than your current plan. 

So...somehow I managed to miss the inclined coal ramp when looking at the Ferryhill map, so I'm not entirely "out of area" after all! Might have to wrap the coaling stage in granite, but I'll worry about that down the line!

In this draft, I've moved the shed to the west, and, in so-doing hopefully addressed The Stationmaster's point about the choke point between turntable and shed roads. That also put the shed to an area where I could add a stores road to the north and an additional building attached to the south wall of the shed, with the option of further buildings to the east.

Sand house and water crane positioned to allow them to support locomotives coming off the turn-table or out of the shed (presumably more useful than having them in the head shunt, though with a little reworking, I could probably get them in between the head shunt and the road as it comes off the turntable).

With reference to The Stationmaster's other points: 

Ash pits moved closer to the coaling stage (I thought I read in a previous discussion that ash pits immediately in front of the coaling stage were not advised as they would rapidly fill with coal which missed the tender?). Breakdown crane hopefully now more sensibly located and the exit trap moved beyond the entry crossover. In terms of "where" the exit road goes...probably to either a terminus or (more likely) a through station, most likely having gone through a tunnel and round a corner to get there. I haven't quite got that far with the detailed planning!

With the locomotives going nose-first into the shed, and backing out, would the external inspection pits still sit to the west, or would they be more usefully placed on the final approach?

Thank you both for your input. Much appreciated.

As someone "returning to model railways" for the first time in 25y, I would be grateful for the thoughts of those with far greater experience and knowledge regarding this possible plan for a MPD.

Setting is roughly north-east Scotland, at the peak of the the LNER (ie I've got to justify stabling a trio of A4s!) accepting that I'm using a ramp for coaling (similar to St Margaret's in Edinburgh, I think) rather than a "cenotaph" (because I prefer the look...if I've picked up the terminology correctly from a month of lurking, "Rule 1 applies"?). As well as the movements of locomotives around the MPD for ash dropping, coaling, turning, watering, sanding and time "On The Shed", I hope to use a yard pilot 0-6-0 to move coal wagons between coal stage and adjacent siding. ("Steady state" being six wagons at the top of the ramp, six in the siding) with the potential to for an O4 to deliver rakes of "full" wagons and remove the empties.

Main constraint is that the baseboards cannot be deeper than 64cm for the first 70cm at the left-hand end (ie to roughly the mid-point of the Coaling Stage), thus I have a whole 2cm of additional depth to play with. I therefore took the gist of the "linear" MPD at Norwood Junction (courtesy of a suggestion in another MPD-related thread), rotated it through 90 degrees, "mirroring" it to avoid everything being hidden behind the coaling ramp and stage...and transplanted it to Scotland. If necessary, there is space available to the right, where I anticipate that the MPD will feed into a "main line" layout in due course.

Specific questions (in addition to any general observations which will be most welcome):

1) How were points actually operated in a MPD? Some layouts seem to include a signal box (though this may be more to do with adjacent main line operations), or would crews operate manual point levers at each turnout? Would there be any signalling other than a "Stop" ("Home"?) signal at the exit to the MPD? Anything around the various tracks? 

2) I have put trap points at the bottom of the coal ramp and on the exit road. Should there be any others?

3) Have I missed anything which ought to be present?

4) Are there any obvious showstoppers?

Many thanks for your thoughts!

Iain