Castle Aching

[nick_bastable]

😆

2 hours ago, Regularity said:

I think you may have meant 125mm, the more or less equivalent o  f 5”, rather than 50”?

was always imperial metric hurts my head yet I model 2mm  😆

[nick_bastable]

18 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

To keep it all on one level, what about?

 

 

could the cassatte roads  also make a direct line to Achingham ? by widen the board  at its right hand side may add a certain play factor

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by nick_bastable

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

It's my experience that locos will start to slip long before the motor becomes overloaded.

It's important that they do, if you don't want to burn out the motor.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

3' of 2"x1" laid across the doorway would suffice, but point taken. A split-level approach benefits from 15' main- and branch line runs and a full Aching Constable Junction (worked out in a cheeky little Mk II) but it might not be worth the hassle. Worth keeping in the back of the mind though, I think, for these reasons.

 

Right ballpark :) 

 

Also shows the general gist of hidden line - as I imagined it - a couple of loops, cassette track and a way to turn trains, nothing v clever...and a long old run before it goes under anything!

 

Oh...apart from the motte of Castle Aching's Castle...which, I've just realised, already exists...so actually it doesn't help hide the line, but would mean driving the line under the Castle, which is probably not ideal. Mind you, Devizes...

 

Anyway, some rules of thumb picked up from hanging round the layout design subforum (rather than from experience):

• >60mm vertical clearance
• >8' straight run 
• <2.5%/1:40 gradient

= workable. 

 

Does this seem reasonable to those in the know? I appreciate there are caveats with corners, and coupled motive power (vs bo-bo/co-co); then concerns about access and practicality etc.

 

In this case...

...min. clearance is just about doable within 1:80, or 1.25%. Above we see track height (440mm above datum, down from 500mm) and the gradient (down 1.1%) from the crossing top-right of the first screen grab to the curve of the return loop, a c.15' run.

 

Just to put some numbers to the chat :) 

 

Assuming you always go clockwise round the loop, the short downhill bit can be much steeper than the longer uphill bit.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, nick_bastable said:

do you think you can rerail a loco in a 3 inch gap ?

 

No - but you can rerail it in the 7" gap between the ply frames.

[Donw]

I would not try rerailing underneath a large baseboard. You just need enough space to be able to  remove them take the to a point where the track is accessible. You also need to be young and agile enough to crawl under baseboards.

Properly laid track and good stock should mean there are few derailments but my choice would be the all level plan rather than have all that hidden trackwork.

Some people do get hidden storage sidings to work well. Often though the whole upper level is on a thin baseboard that will lift off if there is real trouble. I have built some 900x570 baseboards using 4mm ply with 20mmx 12mm  bracing underneath  thus only 25mm or 1inch to me . These are actually designed to be super lightweight for me to move about but could be used for an upper level.

As these days I having difficulty getting up from kneeling  I plan to not need to get underneath baseboards.

I think there enough to do in the all level plan 3 stations with lots of buildings, open running lines in country etc. so the added complications of low level storage will only hinder progress. However thats just my view.

 

Don

[ianathompson]

9 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Adhesion is more likely to be the limiting factor in terms of train weight rather then lack of power in the motor (unless it's a very weedy motor.  It's my experience that locos will start to slip long before the motor becomes overloaded.

 

My own layout takes the from of a double helix around the room. 

The ruling grade is 1 in 36.

The locos do tend to slip on these gradients before the motor is overloaded.

I have pushed the boat out in that my locos are heavily weighted so that they can pull decent loads.

I am using HO/OO mechansims in 7mm scale so there is plenty of room in the bodies to do this.

No burn outs yet!

 

9 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

a piece of  flexi track as long as you can make it set in part at the radius on a board should give you the anwser

 

This was how my initial experiments were conducted.

If the locos had  not been able to pull a train up this grade whilst rounding a curve the layout design would have had to have been binned!

I heartily recommend such a trial before proceeding further.

 

(Although I do not recommend derailing the train onto the lower level/floor as happened on my test run!

Fortunately I used my cricketing skills to catch the loco and the carriages were only very basic shells at that point in their development.)

 

Ian T

[ianathompson]

Re my previous comments.

 

It should be noted that the long curved gradient (known as the vulpafaukangulo) does create some problems.

Train lengths are limited (and a banker added as needed).

The gradient is in the open and has been made into an operational feature of the layout.

The "bankers" actually hinder proceedings as the layout works on straight DC so they cut the power to the train loco.

 

I would not fancy any steep gradients in hidden sections.

There are also two hidden points on the layout. Guess where many derailments occur!

 

Ian T

Edited May 24, 2022 by ianathompson
typo

[Compound2632]

Gradients, hidden sidings, bending, squeezing. All things you will come to contemplate with regret. 

 

Do not design for the layout you want to operate now but for the one you might be struggling to operate in 20 years' time.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

Yes, I'm very much in tune with recent comments. 

 

As I say, I don't like steep gradients or tight curves and I do think access to hidden areas will generally be difficult. 

Even should these be avoided, tight under-board spaces, bending down and relying upon duck-unders are other things to eschew if possible.

 

I also believe in principle that simplicity is best.  Further, one of the difficulties of modelling either or both of the Aching Constable junctions is that they will clutter the scene.

 

Why model them at all then? Logically, for operation, what we need is the ability for traffic

 

(i) to carry on via a direct line from CA to BM and

 

(b) for traffic to enter a cassette yard from either CA or BM.

 

This is most simply and efficiently achieved if it is done via an intervening off-stage area.

 

See below for my idea on this, though you must ignore the very poorly drawn point-work.

 

If it can be made to fit, it:

 

(i) has two cassette positions and a through line on a shelf approx 12" deep.

 

(ii) therefore allows something like a 2' to 2'3" space in front of it

 

(iii) allows for access without a duck-under, re-orientating the planned elements of Achingham's townscape, which, in turn, should help to screen the off-stage area from viewpoints across the layout

 

 

Could this work?

 

 

[Annie]

17 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Could this work?

Now that does look entirely sensible and accessible.  Having gone from being reasonably agile to struggling to get off my knees and stand up in less than ten years I too would make dire warnings against anything hidden or not generally inaccessible.

[St Enodoc]

53 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Yes, I'm very much in tune with recent comments. 

 

As I say, I don't like steep gradients or tight curves and I do think access to hidden areas will generally be difficult. 

Even should these be avoided, tight under-board spaces, bending down and relying upon duck-unders are other things to eschew if possible.

 

I also believe in principle that simplicity is best.  Further, one of the difficulties of modelling either or both of the Aching Constable junctions is that they will clutter the scene.

 

Why model them at all then? Logically, for operation, what we need is the ability for traffic

 

(i) to carry on via a direct line from CA to BM and

 

(b) for traffic to enter a cassette yard from either CA or BM.

 

This is most simply and efficiently achieved if it is done via an intervening off-stage area.

 

See below for my idea on this, though you must ignore the very poorly drawn point-work.

 

If it can be made to fit, it:

 

(i) has two cassette positions and a through line on a shelf approx 12" deep.

 

(ii) therefore allows something like a 2' to 2'3" space in front of it

 

(iii) allows for access without a duck-under, re-orientating the planned elements of Achingham's townscape, which, in turn, should help to screen the off-stage area from viewpoints across the layout

 

 

Could this work?

 

 

Yes it could. I would try, if possible, to have a double through track at the back of the cassette area, with the cassettes in front so they're easier to reach. As you've drawn it, the cassettes appear to be double-ended, which probably isn't necessary.

[Edwardian]

17 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Yes it could. I would try, if possible, to have a double through track at the back of the cassette area, with the cassettes in front so they're easier to reach.

 

Yes. As a facsimile of reality, the through line would be at the front, which would mean reaching over it to the cassettes.  As it's offstage, I can tuck it behind.  I put it in the middle because the point-work seemed easier, but, yes, if it can be configured to go at the back, that would be better. 

 

And I suppose a double track could be fitted.  What would be the advantage of that in your view? 

 

 

17 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

 

 

As you've drawn it, the cassettes appear to be double-ended, which probably isn't necessary.

 

I have drawn a space large enough to accommodate the longest possible trains (4'6"), though I anticipate all trains will be short of this maximum, most considerably so.

 

The intention is to have separate cassettes for locos and trains.  The former get turned, the latter do not. 

 

They don't have to be double ended unless there is some advantage to that. I confess, I have not thought through which of the two lines trains come off and onto at each end. 

 

We have double tracks coming into the cassette area at both ends because (i) at the CA end, that's how I understand junctions of single lines were configured on the prototype and (ii) at the BM end because the mainline has a double-track section from ACNJ all the way to BM to ease the bottleneck resulting from the line from CA converging with the line from ACNJ. 

 

I simply have not addressed my mind to what is using which line in which direction and, thus, the implication for traffic into and out of the cassette yard.  Guidance here would be appreciated.

 

By the way, though home-made is superior and laudable in most instances, I thought I would save some time and trouble by using Intentio cassettes, which can be order to custom lengths. 

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Edwardian
spelling

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

And I suppose a double track could be fitted.  What would be the advantage of that in your view? 

Simply that you have a double track at each end already. I've there's enough length, I'd continue that all the way through, just because...

 

3 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

They don't have to be double ended unless there is some advantage to that.

If they don't have to be double ended, then you won't have to worry about them lining up at both ends at the same time.

[Edwardian]

14 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Simply that you have a double track at each end already. I've there's enough length, I'd continue that all the way through, just because...

 

Good point.  We could continue the double track right through the yard with a pair of turnouts each end leading to a cassette area in front.

 

14 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

If they don't have to be double ended, then you won't have to worry about them lining up at both ends at the same time.

 

You are right of course.

 

Anything running through the yard (i.e. on the BM-CA mainline) just uses the through double track.

 

Anything using a cassette will be starting or stopping, but not travelling through, the yard. 

 

OK, so, literally on the back of an envelope, would this be more the sort of thing?

 

[NeilHB]

I’m really liking the latest plan James, it has lots of potential and scope for a decent length of run. 
 

I would second the use of the Intentio cassettes, I’ve used his 7mm scale versions for Ffarquhar Road and they make life so much easier.

 

 

[Edwardian]

So, here we are, a sketch of where I think I've got to, thanks to Schooner and all the advice and comments gratefully received, and subject to the geometry working, of course. 

 

I have sketched in something of a possible Achingham - it will act as an aide memoir for Yours Truly - which would use forced perspective to give an impression of more town and which will, therefore, rise towards the rear of the boards to form a visual screen to the off-stage portion of the layout. 

 

There seems to be a decent mainline run now in a place where it is visible. 

 

  

[Nearholmer]

That looks as if it will be both visually and operationally satisfying, although I hope that the A and BM operators are good friends, because they will be “out together dancing cheek to cheek”. And, it doesn’t look set to get put of hand in the way that system layouts are apt to do.

 

I’m guessing that the staging area is “subject to further development”, but I think that the flow and topology might be improved by putting the cassette zone between the up and down roads, eliminating the double junctions, although it depends a bit on how it is intended to operate.

[Edwardian]

34 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

That looks as if it will be both visually and operationally satisfying, although I hope that the A and BM operators are good friends, because they will be “out together dancing cheek to cheek”. And, it doesn’t look set to get put of hand in the way that system layouts are apt to do.

 

Yes, after comments by, IIRC, DonW, I've thought about that. Mainly it would just be me. Trains chums are you lot and the Darlington club, one or two members I might in due course tempt over, but it would be good to have people visiting to operate, so I should not discount that possibility. 

 

I can stagger the control panels, but, yes, I fear it is inevitable that the space between permits only 'single line working' and there is not really anywhere to put a passing loop for the operators!

 

 

34 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m guessing that the staging area is “subject to further development”, but I think that the flow and topology might be improved by putting the cassette zone between the up and down roads, eliminating the double junctions, although it depends a bit on how it is intended to operate.

 

That's a good idea.

 

Provided it's not a scenic running line I'm leaning over to place and remove cassettes, and here it is not, I do not see a problem in placing it centrally.

 

I suppose there need only need be one cassette stub for each end of the yard too, unless I've missed something. 

 

Both the Down Line and the Up Line would need to connect to a cassette, at each end of the cassette yard, I think.

 

For instance, suppose the outer track is the Up line, with Up being in the direction of BM from CA and AC.  Trains from CA to ACSJ would need a connection from the Up line to the cassette on the left hand end of the yard. Trains for BM from ACNJ would need a connection from the cassette to the Up line at the right hand end of the cassette yard.

 

The Down Line would need the same.

 

Thus would a sensible arrangement be to connect the cassettes in the between the through lines, as you say, to the toe of a Y turnout that connects to turnouts on both the Up and Down tracks?   

 

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Edwardian
spelling

[Schooner]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

subject to the geometry working

 

Original and still the best:

 

Curves based on PECO ST-238, about 2'10" radius, minimum; pointwork long straights, wyes and curves. Absolutely no attempt made to fair it etc, just an indicative example!

 

Plan A(ii) definitely follows more closely the lessons learned by the community, particularly @Martin S-C's Little Empire, and is all the better for it :)

 

Edit in two tics with Nearholmer's cassette throat idea, which sounds like a Good Thing...

 

Very doable, and with dedicated loco cassettes at either end a) the train cassette could be shortened (not shown, but can only make things easier) and b) operation should be straightforward.

 

Twin cassettes might look something like:

Fairly compact, assuming stock handled the short-Ys okay.

 

 

View on opening the door could be pretty alright too:

 

Like it :)

Edited May 24, 2022 by Schooner
Moar

[Edwardian]

22 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

Original and still the best:

 

Curves based on PECO ST-238, about 2'10" radius, minimum; pointwork long straights, wyes and curves. Absolutely no attempt made to fair it etc, just an indicative example!

 

Plan A(ii) definitely follows more closely the lessons learned by the community, particularly @Martin S-C's Little Empire, and is all the better for it :)

 

Edit in two tics with Nearholmer's cassette throat idea, which sounds like a Good Thing...

 

Perfect.  Yes, that is how I understood Kevin's suggestion.  The addition the separate loco cassette studs is masterly, although one hears people warn about 3-way turnouts.   

 

I do not think it leads to a shortening, because one would have to place the train cassette and the loco cassette in the centre, but could then place the loco cassette on one of the outer stubs to allow it to back onto a train cassette

 

A seemingly excellent arrangement.

 

22 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

Very doable, and with dedicated loco cassettes at either end a) the train cassette could be shortened (not shown, but can only make things easier) and b) operation should be straightforward.

 

View on opening the door could be pretty alright too:

 

Like it :)

 

 

Wow!

[Annie]

I'm very much tempted to layout this latest plan of Schooner's using the Trainz Model Railway software.

[Edwardian]

Just now, Annie said:

I'm very much tempted to layout this latest plan of Schooner's using the Trainz Model Railway software.

 

Well, it would save me the bother!

 

Gentlemen, Ladies, Non-Binary Gentry, thanks to everyone for their invaluable contributions and to Schooner for his mastery of layout planning .... 

 

 

 

[Schooner]

1 minute ago, Annie said:

I'm very much tempted to layout this latest plan of Schooner's using the Trainz Model Railway software.

 

I've failed to get Basemapz to work recently (last 6 months or more), otherwise I'd have both Trainz installed and the WNR built in it! If you fancied it I'm sure I'm not alone in being keen to see this version of the WNR in the 'Digital Design, Stage 2' of Trainz - it was a great help in previous London Docks schemes :)

[Annie]

44 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

I've failed to get Basemapz to work recently (last 6 months or more), otherwise I'd have both Trainz installed and the WNR built in it! If you fancied it I'm sure I'm not alone in being keen to see this version of the WNR in the 'Digital Design, Stage 2' of Trainz - it was a great help in previous London Docks schemes :)

Well when I last used it for a model railway project it was still working fine so hopefully it hasn't gone and quietly died on me as well.

I shall go and check it for vital signs and report back.........

Edited May 24, 2022 by Annie
fumble brain