Model Railway Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 251 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,843 Posts
That's better Ray but I would move the access road to the turntable to between the 2 sets of points in the MPD. It's a bit isolated where it is and makes the pointwork unnecessarily complex. I also see that you have a set of facing points to the right of the station which should be reversed.
 

· Longfunnelled&tiresome
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
Yup, I'd go along with the others in saying it looks real promising. I'll even wager it may lever you into DCC!
SWBO used to go on holiday every year to Penmaenmawr - she remembers being there one year when the Irish Mail was completely wrecked right along the front.

LF&T
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
QUOTE (Expat @ 7 Apr 2012, 00:57) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That's better Ray but I would move the access road to the turntable to between the 2 sets of points in the MPD. It's a bit isolated where it is and makes the pointwork unnecessarily complex. I also see that you have a set of facing points to the right of the station which should be reversed.

I was thinking the same things myself Trevor! (Great minds and all that!)
The revision was just a quick "I wonder if it is possible" sketch without too much thought going into it.

I forgot to say the the extra width will allow an outer radius of about 2ft 10in and an inner one (at station) of about 2ft 6" which while not generous should suffice.

I may put a short siding lower left for station pilot loco.

Wish I could squeeze in at least one carriage siding that could take around 3-4 carriages (say 40"). The only way I see is to slightly shorten the main oval and put in a curved siding instead of the station pilot siding on the lower left.

Anyway that's it now for 3 weeks!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Quick Revision - even managed the carriage siding!



 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·

· Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Hi Ray,

I'm very interested in your quest to produce an interesting small layout.

As mentioned I'm more in favour of your first design rather than the last two. There exists many sheds that were dependent upon a turntable to feed their sheds with loco's. Some that come to mind from the Southern Region being Sidmouth, Sevenoaks, Maidstone East, Leatherhead, Swanage and the design I will recommend to you being Margate West. There are also limited examples of this design in the other three regions.

In the Margate West MPD there are two roads which run around each side of an island type coal stage to the turntable. From the turntable three separate roads lead to the dead end shed. You could easily some extra tracks around the sides of the shed for loco storage/scrap line etc.

This way you get layout similar to real life which is compact and has a logical flow of duties for steam engines coming onto and off shed.

I'll get you a drawing to consider.

Regards
Steve
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Hi folks... Back from a lovely relaxing holiday.

Will be trying to add some storage loops to the design towards the end of the week.

In the meantime, for anyone interested, the station will be named BELMONT. The layout is loosely based upon Bangor (North Wales) and I used to live in Belmont Park in Bangor (Northern Ireland) !!!


Anyway I think it is generic enough to be a town!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
I have been having a serious re-think about the new layout and am tempted to go for this plan by C.J. Freezer (plan 52 Fore Street in the PSL Book of Model Railway Track Plans)





Although the Loco facilities are more limited, it does have quite a long run with good operating potential and more importantly an operating well providing better access to all parts of the layout.

All comments welcome!
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,873 Posts
One of Freezer's better plans I think, if you have the size of space needed. (His plans can easily be extended but many can't be contracted.) The only difficulty is likely to be the gradients involved. He sometimes used gradients that many on this forum would say are too severe.

I agree that a central operating well is very much an advantage. One good result is that coaches appear to close up on the bends when viewed from the inside rather than open up as they would do watched from the outside.

Good luck with the project.

Robert
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,989 Posts
Hi Ray,

The only thing I would say in it being a Freezer plan is to really check it out dimensionally for the space you have before going with it.

When I started out there were a couple of his plans I really liked but I couldnt possibly see how I could make them work even though I had a very similar space for which they were recommended.

I calculated that the plans had 1 in 30 gradients which was way too steep for me so as Robert suggests just make sure it all measures up first. Also I found that some of the features were really squeezed in which made them difficult so you need to measure up for those also.

Hope it works out for you though, good luck with it anyway.

regards
Ron
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
I agree with the comments about sizes. And the gradients will need careful measurement especially as the plan can cope with 5 or 6 coach trains! The goods and engine shed facilities are less than I would have liked but I have never found a perfect plan yet. Also the coaling facilities seems to scupper the Bachmann LNWR coaling stage i have bought ! (no spare siding for raised coal loading). I may sacrifice the upper goods yard for a different MPD.

Another bonus is that by setting the points you can have two continuous circuits around the lower station. Changing the points makes it and out and back - clever design!
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,843 Posts
Hi Ray,

On first view it looks a very good and clever plan but, as others have suggested, there do seem to be gradient problems.

The return loop has to fall and rise by 2 levels over approx. 26ft of track length. Assuming 3" between each level that means a 6" fall over 13 ft (1 in 26) and the same climb back up again. This is without making any provision for vertical transitions and, once these are taken into account, even by squeezing the levels to a minimum I think the gradient will be 1 in 30 at best. This is typical of the gradients on many CJF Plans and is much steeper than anything longer than a loco plus 3 or 4 carriages will cope with.

It may be possible to ease them by also putting the through station on a gradient but this will create its own problems so I think you need to get this plan into a computerised track planning programme of some sort to identify and hopefully resolve these potential problems and identify any others that may be lurking.

Good luck.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,873 Posts
You might be able to ease the gradients if you are willing to accept the minimum possible difference between levels. This could be done by having the upper station on thin plywood supported by metal cross pieces. Also, where the single line return loop goes under the double track, the double track could be supported on a thin metal sheet.

Of course this means difficulty if there is trouble underneath, but with no points involved you might be willing to take the gamble. If the upper station were made removable, then this problem becomes much less important. It is probably doable but you will have to be very careful with setting out the levels.

Robert
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
I have re-checked the gradients and the major problem is the station throat where the continuous runs go under the station. This needs a minimum of 3". I reckon I could make the continuous runs rise up slightly into the passing station by 0.5" but that would still mean a rise of 2.5" between the station and the tunnels. However since the continuous runs do not run directly under the station throat tracks, I may be able to start the gradient further along the station throat at the back of the signal cabin. This would mean a drop of 2.5" over 7ft (84") equating to about 1:33 gradient which while not great may just work.

The bottom return loop isn't so bad as there is a long run and it can be lowered easily to accommodate the tunnel under the intermediate station.

Hmmmm....
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
QUOTE (Robert Stokes @ 14 May 2012, 11:47) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ray, don't forget that the main way to ease gradients is to have the upper line rising while lower one falls. This means each has half the gradient that would be needed if the lower one were level.

Robert

Hi Robert. Thanks. Unfortunately there isn't much leeway unless I don't make the passing station level and begin the gradient at the footbridge. However this would mean split level platforms as the outer lines would drop while the inner lines would rise !
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
Have had another look. If I take the intermediate station as Datum (0") and level then I could drop the continuous run lines to -1 and raise the lines to the terminus to around +2.
The quadruple track under the terminus would be -1 and the return loop -4 to clear the continuous run.

So that would mean a minimum gradient of 1:36. Probably acceptable.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
QUOTE (Expat @ 14 May 2012, 13:38) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You could, of course, build it in N Gauge which would halve your gradients and double your track length in terms of scale miles.


Now why didn't I think of that !!!


OO rolling stock going cheap !!!!
 
21 - 40 of 251 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top