danstercivicman Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 Time for a new layout thread. Due to a house move the old layout (Birmingham Hope Street) which was based on Minories will be dismantled. The new layout will be 4.3m long by 1.8m wide (max) it will be in a garage (which I still need to insulate). I will begin with the plan and then step by step I'll start designing the boards and the wiring! These are set: 1) DC cab control 2) BR Late Crest 3) The layout will be set in 1965 as the last Steam Loco's and early diesels ply their tasks. 4) Urban setting Comments and feedback welcome 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 Time for a new layout thread. Due to a house move the old layout (Birmingham Hope Street) which was based on Minories will be dismantled. The new layout will be 4.3m long by 1.8m wide (max) it will be in a garage (which I still need to insulate). I will begin with the plan and then step by step I'll start designing the boards and the wiring! These are set: 1) DC cab control 2) BR Late Crest 3) The layout will be set in 1965 as the last Steam Loco's and early diesels ply their tasks. 4) Urban setting Comments and feedback welcome Hi Dan I still think you need a facing crossover to connect platforms 1 & 2 to the inbound main line even if that's only used for ECS and light engine movements. Without that you're going to have a lot wrong line working and a long distance express is unlikely to be shunted straight from the arrivals to the departure side. Do you think someone should tell Peco that there is no such thing as a "catch turnout" They were cleary so browbeaten into not referring to points (as they always used to) that they've gone too far the other way. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 27, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) No facing crossover worked fine for Cheltenham St James. If Dan does put in a facing crossover, I think it might be worth changing the throat so that Platform 1 is a bay that can not be arrived at. Another modification, if 1/2 are departure only, could be to make the 1/2 island narrower and the 3/4 island wider to allow access to taxis and parcels vehicles. Apart from that, I wonder if the platforms need to be quite so slanted across those boards. A slighter lesser angle would allow gentler curves at platform ends and also give more space between the fiddle yard and station boards. Edited March 27, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold lezz01 Posted March 27, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2018 Hi there. If you don't want to shunt ECS you need to move the facing crossover one place to the right. If you do want to shunt ECS then it's great as it is but you don't need the platform release crossovers. I mention this because you are modeling steam/diesel crossover and they started to change to DMUs on local passenger working so they didn't need to shunt ECS. If you are shunting ECS where are the carriage sidings and how do you propose to work to and from them? You also need to either run light engine to a MPD for turning and then run light engine back on to your train or change engines every arrival and departure. Either way that's a lot of light engine movements and a lot of ECS movements and if you propose to exhibit this then you will need to explain it all to the punters, most of whom will not have ever seen a station with a differentiated arrivals and departure or even passenger workings with steam on anything other than preserved lines. Regards Lez.Z. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstercivicman Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) Hi there. If you don't want to shunt ECS you need to move the facing crossover one place to the right. If you do want to shunt ECS then it's great as it is but you don't need the platform release crossovers. I mention this because you are modeling steam/diesel crossover and they started to change to DMUs on local passenger working so they didn't need to shunt ECS. If you are shunting ECS where are the carriage sidings and how do you propose to work to and from them? You also need to either run light engine to a MPD for turning and then run light engine back on to your train or change engines every arrival and departure. Either way that's a lot of light engine movements and a lot of ECS movements and if you propose to exhibit this then you will need to explain it all to the punters, most of whom will not have ever seen a station with a differentiated arrivals and departure or even passenger workings with steam on anything other than preserved lines. Regards Lez.Z. No plans to exhibit More than happy to shunt ECS and light engines- it was certainly a big part of my Minories layout. Suburbans can run round their trains or be DMU hauled... Here's my initial thinking on stock- see attached word docLoco's and Stock Layout.docx I guess Birmingham Carriage sidings and the MPD would be the other side of the viaduct which takes you across (insert some random part of the city). The main ECS would be expresses. Semi-Fasts can just sit at the platforms or be shunted straight away? Edited March 27, 2018 by danstercivicman 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstercivicman Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 No facing crossover worked fine for Cheltenham St James. If Dan does put in a facing crossover, I think it might be worth changing the throat so that Platform 1 is a bay that can not be arrived at. Another modification, if 1/2 are departure only, could be to make the 1/2 island narrower and the 3/4 island wider to allow access to taxis and parcels vehicles. Apart from that, I wonder if the platforms need to be quite so slanted across those boards. A slighter lesser angle would allow gentler curves at platform ends and also give more space between the fiddle yard and station boards. Hello, Thanks for the continued input I have tried to make the arrivals side smaller but anyrail can't handle the angle and overflexes the curve when I click smooth flex. Its therefore set at 200 which is bigger than the 150mm I'd ideally want. I think prototypical distance between the two should be 125mm in OO? I'd have to build turnouts- don't even go there with the missus. Planning a layout has wound her up enough when there is DIY to do!!!!! I have got the slant for the platforms for three reasons- 1) Peco track is 12 degrees therefore once adding the curved points and trying to fit the 610mm radius inner curve on the viaduct the whole thing compresses somewhat. 2) The angle brings it closer to the operator in the well 3) The angle makes the platforms longer- allowing longer trains I can't use the full 5m space as I need to build a bike/buggy store at the front... I guess the facing crossover remains contentious. I am struggling to use it for these reasons- 1) Cost/wiring its another section that will need isolators, switches and power feeds 2) I am struggling to fit it in and have any space to join boards. The main board is already a somewhat unmanageable 2m by 1m (which will angle to 50 cm) I may need to lessen this somewhat Hopefully that will explain some of the points? Best Dan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) No facing crossover worked fine for Cheltenham St James. If Dan does put in a facing crossover, I think it might be worth changing the throat so that Platform 1 is a bay that can not be arrived at. Another modification, if 1/2 are departure only, could be to make the 1/2 island narrower and the 3/4 island wider to allow access to taxis and parcels vehicles. Apart from that, I wonder if the platforms need to be quite so slanted across those boards. A slighter lesser angle would allow gentler curves at platform ends and also give more space between the fiddle yard and station boards. I'm looking at a signal box diagram for Cheltenham St. James from RM in April 1970 and it's certainly an interesting station. An almost identical plan is available here https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=497 and a detailed map here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_03_2017/post-238-0-52314500-1488969663.jpg What I don't know is whether there were carriage sidings elesewhere in Cheltenham or whether the sidings and middle lines at the station were sufficient. The station closed in 1966 so it's in your period Dan. I'm surprised though that having separate arrivals and departures platforms survived so late but arrivals at only two but departures from all four platforms sounds to me more likely than the other way round. What I but don't know was how busy or otherwise the terrminus was under BR and whether all four platforms were then being used. It definitely deserves more investigation as such an arrangement could shorten the throat of the terminus I want to build. Having a departures only bay is something I also played with on Minories and it's fairly simpe to arrange with no extra length. Edited March 27, 2018 by Pacific231G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstercivicman Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 Hi Dan I still think you need a facing crossover to connect platforms 1 & 2 to the inbound main line even if that's only used for ECS and light engine movements. Without that you're going to have a lot wrong line working and a long distance express is unlikely to be shunted straight from the arrivals to the departure side. Do you think someone should tell Peco that there is no such thing as a "catch turnout" They were cleary so browbeaten into not referring to points (as they always used to) that they've gone too far the other way. Hello, Thanks for the continued support. I am really undecided on the facing crossover. I am struggling with space to join the boards and the extra section/isolators/wiring it would add. It is in keeping with the Bastille plan but I do like the idea of crating lots of operational problems by having arrival and departures sides I guess 'trap' would be better? I think Peco need to take some of Shinohara's points and develop them- if I planned the layout using shinohara it would certainly flow much more But then I'd have to use point motors from the off... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 27, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2018 Know just what you mean there! Planning a layout has wound her up enough when there is DIY to do!!!!! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 27, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2018 I'm looking at a signal box diagram for Cheltenham St. James from RM in April 1970 and it's certainly an interesting station. An almost identical plan is available here https://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=497 and a detailed map here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_03_2017/post-238-0-52314500-1488969663.jpg What I don't know is whether there were carriage sidings elesewhere in Cheltenham or whether the sidings and middle lines at the station were sufficient. The station closed in 1966 so it's in your period Dan. I'm surprised though that having separate arrivals and departures platforms survived so late but arrivals at only two but departures from all four platforms sounds to me more likely than the other way round. What I but don't know was how busy or otherwise the terrminus was under BR and whether all four platforms were then being used. It definitely deserves more investigation. CStJ was a fairly quiet station. Not perhaps totally comparable with what Dan is trying to represent. Traffic consisted of trains from Banbury via Kingham and from Paddington via Gloucester and, at some periods, from the M&SWJ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstercivicman Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 Know just what you mean there! Planning a layout has wound her up enough when there is DIY to do!!!!! Thankfully I'm back to work tomorrow Its no good with the missus on maternity- you can't tidy up five minutes before she gets in on my days off and say 'oh look how much I've done today'.... A four year old and a four month old make layout time limited too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 27, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2018 I have got the slant for the platforms for three reasons- 1) Peco track is 12 degrees therefore once adding the curved points and trying to fit the 610mm radius inner curve on the viaduct the whole thing compresses somewhat. 2) The angle brings it closer to the operator in the well 3) The angle makes the platforms longer- allowing longer trains I can't use the full 5m space as I need to build a bike/buggy store at the front... I don't think that the 12 deg angle of the Peco makes any odds to this. I take your point that more angle makes for longer platforms but only by a couple of inches, I think. Or you could spread the curve through more of the platform which would be even longer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstercivicman Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 I don't think that the 12 deg angle of the Peco makes any odds to this. I take your point that more angle makes for longer platforms but only by a couple of inches, I think. Or you could spread the curve through more of the platform which would be even longer. No its tremondously inhibiting using peco 12 degree- you add a curved point and the whole thing goes astray. Not to mention wye turnouts!!! And the compound radius which means the radius is less than you want Good idea but....then I'd need to model curved platforms- EEK!!!! Have you seen my wood cutting skills?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold lezz01 Posted March 27, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2018 So where is the catch point? I can't even see one on your plan. You only need one where there is a danger of loose good stock running away onto passenger running lines. Regards Lez.Z. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 27, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) No its tremondously inhibiting using peco 12 degree- you add a curved point and the whole thing goes astray. Not to mention wye turnouts!!! And the compound radius which means the radius is less than you want Good idea but....then I'd need to model curved platforms- EEK!!!! Have you seen my wood cutting skills?? I'm not suggesting that you move any of the points (or not significantly). Just play about a little with the curves on the platform roads. I don't use the same software, so I can't easily draw it for you. But it should be quite quick and easy for you to try different curves. Edit to add: Found a solution. Printed off your plan, drew my suggestion on it and then scanned. I wonder why you have a length of the station throat without any points. Seems like a waste of length. If you get rid of that, all the pointwork (except the first crossover) can move a few inches to the right.Scan0073.pdf Edited March 27, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 27, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2018 Another rough doodle shows that by closing up the pointwork in the approach, you should get platforms around 2m in length - 6/7 coaches.Scan0074.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstercivicman Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 I'm not suggesting that you move any of the points (or not significantly). Just play about a little with the curves on the platform roads. I don't use the same software, so I can't easily draw it for you. But it should be quite quick and easy for you to try different curves. Edit to add: Found a solution. Printed off your plan, drew my suggestion on it and then scanned. I wonder why you have a length of the station throat without any points. Seems like a waste of length. If you get rid of that, all the pointwork (except the first crossover) can move a few inches to the right. Scan0073.pdf The gap is where the original faving cross over went which is now the board join. I will have a look later to see if I can condense it up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 27, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2018 Here's my initial thinking on stock- see attached word docLoco's and Stock Layout.docx Your newspaper/parcels train and the milk tankers do not need a goods brake van as you already have a BG in the consist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstercivicman Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 Your newspaper/parcels train and the milk tankers do not need a goods brake van as you already have a BG in the consist. I think they tended to add one as they had stoves inside (not sure if the BG did?) Might be completely wrong mind? Your newspaper/parcels train and the milk tankers do not need a goods brake van as you already have a BG in the consist. I think they tended to add one as they had stoves inside (not sure if the BG did?) Might be completely wrong mind? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted March 27, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2018 I think they tended to add one as they had stoves inside (not sure if the BG did?) Might be completely wrong mind? I think they tended to add one as they had stoves inside (not sure if the BG did?) Might be completely wrong mind? BR Mk1 BGs would have been equipped for steam heating (and later, electric). Not sure how that would work with a milk train though. Others will know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted March 27, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 27, 2018 What is the purpose of the "Loop" between the headshunt and the lower goods siding? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstercivicman Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 What is the purpose of the "Loop" between the headshunt and the lower goods siding? Hello, Its for shunting I think Might be over duplication but someone suggested it would be a good idea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 Chesterfield Market might provide some inspiration - Borchester was very similar... I always advocate looking at the prototype for ideas, after all the big railways had to solve the same problems we do on our little railways. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstercivicman Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 Chesterfield Market might provide some inspiration - Borchester was very similar... Chesterfield Marketplace.jpg I always advocate looking at the prototype for ideas, after all the big railways had to solve the same problems we do on our little railways. Looks a little odd I guess Peco has its limits 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danstercivicman Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) So where is the catch point? I can't even see one on your plan. You only need one where there is a danger of loose good stock running away onto passenger running lines. Regards Lez.Z. Top- line 1 (the bay). Its an Sl-85 just to prevent any stock running onto the UP MAIN Edited March 27, 2018 by danstercivicman Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now