Chuffnell Regis

[Graham T]

12 hours ago, aardvark said:

 

Would you consider running the train all the way around the room and putting your desk and workspace in the middle?

 

 

I don't think that would work for me, sorry!

 

[Graham T]

2 hours ago, Tortuga said:

 

Just putting it out there, but C&L do a kit for a tandem turnout, which was my first attempt at hand built track. You can select for 00-SF roller gauges and I’d recommend using Templot to sort out a template.

 

Usual disclaimer regarding no connection to either, merely making suggestions.

 

If you do go down that route, I’m happy to provide pointers - as one novice track builder to another!

 

2 hours ago, Tortuga said:

Also, I think the recommended minimum radius in 00-SF is 750mm (not 100% definite) - although I went with 610mm on Alsop’s hidden curves* - don’t know if this helps you fit stuff in beyond your proposed scenic breaks?
 

*minimum radius for major manufacturers seems to be “2nd radius” (train set curves) or 438mm.

 

Thanks for the offer of pointers @Tortuga, I may well take you up on that!  Regarding radii of curves, I'd like to keep to a minimum of 36' (914mm) in the scenic areas, but it's useful to hear of your experience with tighter curves in hidden areas, because I will almost certainly have to do that.  And of course I'm using three link couplings, which I'd like to stick with.

 

I'm still mulling over various plans, and so far have only really decided that I want a continuous loop and OO-SF British Finescale turnouts!  And I'm getting perilously close to making a decision to download Templot, which will of course also involve buying a licence for Parallels Desktop on my Mac...

 

[Harlequin]

45 minutes ago, Graham T said:

 

 

Thanks for the offer of pointers @Tortuga, I may well take you up on that!  Regarding radii of curves, I'd like to keep to a minimum of 36' (914mm) in the scenic areas, but it's useful to hear of your experience with tighter curves in hidden areas, because I will almost certainly have to do that.  And of course I'm using three link couplings, which I'd like to stick with.

 

I'm still mulling over various plans, and so far have only really decided that I want a continuous loop and OO-SF British Finescale turnouts!  And I'm getting perilously close to making a decision to download Templot, which will of course also involve buying a licence for Parallels Desktop on my Mac...

 

 

Templot is a Marmite program so be sure you can get on with it before you shell out on Parallels.

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Harlequin

[Graham T]

6 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Templot is a Marmite program so be sure you can get on with before you shell out on Parallels.

 

 

Thanks Phil, will do!

 

[BWsTrains]

28 minutes ago, Graham T said:

 

Thanks Phil, will do!

 

 

Re Phil's: "Templot is a Marmite program so be sure you can get on with before you shell out on Parallels"

 

It might be simpler if you could find someone with a laptop they could spare for a while while you try it out. Pity I'm 10000km away as I have just the thing.

 

 

[Graham T]

Anyone who knows me well enough to lend me their laptop, also knows me well enough to realise that I'd probably wreck it 😀

 

My own laptop is a Chromebook, so that will have the same issues as the Mac.

 

[Neal Ball]

2 minutes ago, Graham T said:

Anyone who knows me well enough to lend me their laptop, also knows me well enough to realise that I'd probably wreck it 😀

 

My own laptop is a Chromebook, so that will have the same issues as the Mac.

 

 

Can't beat a Mac 😎

[Andy Keane]

have you tried the free version of Anyrail 6

andy

[Schooner]

Let's try that again in the right thread....

 

A very quick (coffee break special!) and very rough demo of what a Henley-in-Arden-a-like might look like:

• Mainline through station
  • 6' platforms (slightly staggered), 3 platform faces
  • Small 'up' loading dock; scope for 'down' facilities on branch loop loco release, or as kickback, if desired

 

• BLT
  • >3' platform
  • Shed, dock, yard - usual fare
  • Engine shed (moved back to mask end of visible scene)
  • Arrangement as per prototype, but lots of trainset shunting fun to be had with it!

 

• General
  • Minimum 34" curves, roughly :)
  • Single track section will have a significant impact on running options
  • PW work scene (on overbridge?!) to mask the twin-track main line disappearing, and explain all traffic taking the secondary/branch line
  • Stolen an extra foot up to the pillar!
  • Thought of as having two operating positions - looking top-left for main line and lower-right for BLT - to mitigate the slight lack of overall coherence!

 

• Concessions:
  • Many!

 

• Problems:
  • Track right out to the window is the main one - as I don't think this is an option without having the layout much lower than desired? - and cutting space here pretty directly translates to cutting platform length unless curves can be tightened...but as they're all scenic this isn't ideal.
  • Storage! Or rather lack thereof. An initial thought is to take a line from the lower-left corner (junction of twin track/branch) and run it round the back of the mainline station and down to low-level storage of hockey-stick traverser and a couple of cassette roads under the BLT. Pros and cons, as per.
  • Terminating platforms face the same way - it may suit, but many would prefer them opposed.

 

For my next trick:

Something Bathish, around this skeleton?

Edited June 15, 2023 by Schooner

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, Graham T said:

 

 

close to making a decision to download Templot, which will of course also involve buying a licence for Parallels Desktop on my Mac...

 

 

@Graham T

 

Hi Graham,

 

Not necessarily. You can run Templot on a Mac using CrossOver -- which doesn't require Parallels or a copy of Windows. There is a free trial period for CrossOver, so you can try Templot on it before you buy:

 

 https://www.codeweavers.com/crossover

 

Lots more about running Templot on CrossOver on the Templot web site.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Graham T]

18 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

@Graham T

 

Hi Graham,

 

Not necessarily. You can run Templot on a Mac using CrossOver -- which doesn't require Parallels or a copy of Windows. There is a free trial period for CrossOver, so you can try Templot on it before you buy:

 

 https://www.codeweavers.com/crossover

 

Lots more about running Templot on CrossOver on the Templot web site.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Thanks @martin_wynne, I actually have the Crossover page already open in a tab on my Mac!  I'm about to go away with work this weekend, so won't play with it for a week or so.  Would you recommend either of them?  (Crossover or Parallels).

 

[Graham T]

1 hour ago, Andy Keane said:

have you tried the free version of Anyrail 6

andy

 

I don't think I have Andy, but from what I see on their page it's another program written for Windows, so the same deal would apply as with Templot.

 

[Graham T]

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

Let's try that again in the right thread....

 

A very quick (coffee break special!) and very rough demo of what a Henley-in-Arden-a-like might look like:

• Mainline through station
  • 6' platforms (slightly staggered), 3 platform faces
  • Small 'up' loading dock; scope for 'down' facilities on branch loop loco release, or as kickback, if desired

 

• BLT
  • >3' platform
  • Shed, dock, yard - usual fare
  • Engine shed (moved back to mask end of visible scene)
  • Arrangement as per prototype, but lots of trainset shunting fun to be had with it!

 

• General
  • Minimum 34" curves, roughly :)
  • Single track section will have a significant impact on running options
  • PW work scene (on overbridge?!) to mask the twin-track main line disappearing, and explain all traffic taking the secondary/branch line
  • Stolen an extra foot up to the pillar!
  • Thought of as having two operating positions - looking top-left for main line and lower-right for BLT - to mitigate the slight lack of overall coherence!

 

• Concessions:
  • Many!

 

• Problems:
  • Track right out to the window is the main one - as I don't think this is an option without having the layout much lower than desired? - and cutting space here pretty directly translates to cutting platform length unless curves can be tightened...but as they're all scenic this isn't ideal.
  • Storage! Or rather lack thereof. An initial thought is to take a line from the lower-left corner (junction of twin track/branch) and run it round the back of the mainline station and down to low-level storage of hockey-stick traverser and a couple of cassette roads under the BLT. Pros and cons, as per.
  • Terminating platforms face the same way - it may suit, but many would prefer them opposed.

 

For my next trick:

Something Bathish, around this skeleton?

 

Thanks very much for those ideas @Schooner - interesting stuff!  As you said, biggest problem I can see with the first one is the lack of storage.  The hockey stick solution you floated makes me wonder if you were looking over my shoulder last night?  (More on that in a moment).

 

The second plan looks good too.  All mine so far have had storage at the pillar side of the space, so flipping that might open up some options.  

 

An idea popped into my head last night, whilst I was trying to come up with more imaginative ways of using the space.  You were right in saying that the various musings of plans so far look nice, but a touch on the vanilla side.  So I wondered about this:

• a continuous loop with a through station close to the pillar, leading up to storage loops along the top wall - as you have in your second plan
• through station based on either Dulverton or Bourne End (but with the continuous run reduced to a single line if using the latter)
• a branch line runs from the right hand end of the through station, climbs up along the external wall side of the layout, to a raised scenic section above the storage loops - but I'm not sure if there's a long enough run for the gradient to be reasonable?
• branch terminate in a small station - I had something based on Ashburton in mind
• the storage loops would be open from the front of the layout i.e. underneath the raised scenic section for access

 

It occurs to me that the topography would be a bit unrealistic, as my thoughts were to have the loop disappearing into a tunnel below each end of the storage loops, and then the branch line would be climbing up to eventually cross over the top of the (by then) underground track.  But perhaps that could be masked with copious application of trees or something like that...

 

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Graham T

[Harlequin]

Remember the goal of a realistic small station in the wider landscape that I think you're after...

 

Most stations were pretty "vanilla" - it was the small variations that made them interesting.

 

Sensible gradients in the space available: VERY difficult unless you go all around the outside, but then any lifting section requires major engineering.

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Harlequin

[Graham T]

11 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Remember the goal of a realistic small station in the wider landscape looks that I think you're after...

 

Most stations were pretty "vanilla" - it was the small variations that made them interesting.

 

Sensible gradients in the space available: VERY difficult unless you go all around the outside, but then any lifting section requires major engineering.

 

 

Valid point Reg, thanks for getting me back on track.  I fear that I've fallen into the trap of (a) trying to cram too much into the space, and (b) trying to be too clever for my own good!

 

Maybe I should stick to something along the lines of one of these two (noting that there would have to be a fan of curved points at the right hand end of the loops on the second plan):

 

 

[Neal Ball]

12 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Remember the goal of a realistic small station in the wider landscape looks that I think you're after...

 

Most stations were pretty "vanilla" - it was the small variations that made them interesting.

 

Sensible gradients in the space available: VERY difficult unless you go all around the outside, but then any lifting section requires major engineering.

 

Having tried a multi level approach when we were still in the UK, it’s something personally I would avoid.

 

There was something like a  20ft run from one level to another and the steam locos couldn’t manage it. Diesels roared up there! My criteria was 6 carriage formations, add in some kit built stock, even the DCC Concepts magnets and I still wasn’t happy with it.

[Graham T]

Thanks Neal - all on one level it shall be!  That will make things (a little) simpler.

 

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

 

@Graham T

 

Hi Graham,

 

Not necessarily. You can run Templot on a Mac using CrossOver -- which doesn't require Parallels or a copy of Windows. There is a free trial period for CrossOver, so you can try Templot on it before you buy:

 

 https://www.codeweavers.com/crossover

 

Lots more about running Templot on CrossOver on the Templot web site.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

It also runs perfectly well under Wine on Linux - so presumably would do on Mac as well. Wine has the distinct advantage of being free... Anyrail also runs happily on Wine, and now includes at least some of the BF pointwork.

[Graham T]

21 minutes ago, Nick C said:

It also runs perfectly well under Wine on Linux - so presumably would do on Mac as well. Wine has the distinct advantage of being free... Anyrail also runs happily on Wine, and now includes at least some of the BF pointwork.

 

I think that's the one I'll have a go with first actually, thanks Nick.  I used to enjoy dabbling with Linux a lot - but found I spent more time configuring, tweaking, and sometimes breaking my computer than actually using it!

 

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, Graham T said:

 

I think that's the one I'll have a go with first actually, thanks Nick.  I used to enjoy dabbling with Linux a lot - but found I spent more time configuring, tweaking, and sometimes breaking my computer than actually using it!

 

Yep! it's moved along a lot since those days though - I'm typing this on a Linux laptop on which is almost entirely out-of-the-box. Spend plenty of time tweaking and configuring them when I'm at work though!

[Graham T]

You might come to regret letting that slip Nick, I’ll probably come to pick your brains about Wine!

 

[Gopher]

2 hours ago, Graham T said:

 

Valid point Reg, thanks for getting me back on track.  I fear that I've fallen into the trap of (a) trying to cram too much into the space, and (b) trying to be too clever for my own good!

 

Maybe I should stick to something along the lines of one of these two (noting that there would have to be a fan of curved points at the right hand end of the loops on the second plan):

 

 

I like the first plan Graham.  Appeals to me as it is double track,  not too cramped, and quite complex pointwork on the left side of the station approach and I think would be fun and interesting to operate.  No real idea how proto-typical it is, but it looks good to my eyes, and would be fun to build (especially with kit built points).     

 

Clive

[checkrail]

On 14/06/2023 at 10:25, Graham T said:

I think I've missed the point probably (sorry!) as this seems to make access from the inner circuit (down line?) onto the branch very convoluted; a down train bound for the branch would have to set back into the bay first if I've understood correctly.

 

I think this bit is from an earlier version of your plans, now superseded, but it's worth noting that many junctions were laid out like that, to minimise the number of facing points on the mainline. (The advent of efficient facing point locks eased this requirement somewhat but it's probably still the case that steam era layouts in general have more facing points than the prototype ever did.) Stoke Courtenay has a rather 19th century track layout in that regard and trains bound for the branch, and goods trains bound for the yard from either direction, need to set back into the branch platform or its loop. It all adds to operational interest as well as realism.

[Schooner]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Most stations were pretty "vanilla"

Indeed, as are most layouts and most places which accomodate them. Not so here.

 

It seems a huge waste of potential for a Railway in Landscape layout to not have the Railway in as much acreage of Landscape as possible - that is on a wide board making use of the enviable option to access from both sides. In most places this is a waste of space, in this place, it is a fixed aspect of where the layout will live. Ideal!

The window is higher than first I thought too - I'm assuming the height of the modelling bench makes for a good height for the layout? - which actually makes things a lot simpler than I had imagined, too.

 

Were it me I think I'd be looking at a footprint something like

(A little small, at 15' flat, but that allows for the track being up against the visible edge. Obviously the junction would be built into the easement in the corner, but it takes too long to line up the geometry for now! Traverser likewise. Oh, and sorry, I forgot to put 'Scene 2' in - on the RHS, urban or woodland, up to the slopey ceiling to mask the traverser)

 

Taken to about breaking point, this unlocks an awful lot of landscape to put railway in:

Just because you can doesn't mean you should...but it's fun to know what's possible, no?

 

If it doesn't work for whatever reason then that's great, an avenue has been explored and even better options found...but to sound off against even trying is, if nothing else, dull!

 

Likewise split-level layouts - I don't quite understand why we get so hung up on them. In the States or Europe we'd be weird for trying to cram everything on one level, and they've got a point. For example there is plenty of room to run helix to helix if you wanted:

as per, for easy example, Charlie Bishop's Chadwick. You could even, like Chadwick, pop a little BLT over one and a well-developed industry, or separate goods yard, or MPD or whatever you fancy, over the other. That would gain you all the storage space in the world without any faffing with traversers or cassettes. The trade off? Stock has got to be able to handle the helix - no free lunch!

 

Of course, the above are rough as guts and make no allowance for anything other than basic footprints, but if anything like that appeals then now is a really good time to explore and see if they can be made to work. If so:  Woop woop, another choice! If not: Woop woop, further confirmation that your plan is the right one!

 

And I've got an hour's free entertainment out of it all - thanks :)

 

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Schooner
PS. Oh, the other thing I meant to mention - when not operating the layout, would you rather the view from the rest of the room be your beautifully modelled main scene, or the arse end of the storage yard?

[5BarVT]

3 hours ago, Schooner said:

PS. Oh, the other thing I meant to mention - when not operating the layout, would you rather the view from the rest of the room be your beautifully modelled main scene, or the arse end of the storage yard?

A very good point!

Paul.