|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 4 Jun 2011 21:03 from: NeilD click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi All, Attached is my initial plan for my magnum opus, based on Crianlarich Station on the West Highland Line, with the intention of building it to reflect its NBR days. This is intended to be a P4 layout. (For those of you who model in "N gauge" you may be familiar with the Loch Oran layout by David Harrison, which is also based on Crianlarich.) I'd appreciate any comments and Peer Reviews (although many of you are far too good for me to call you peers). I particularly have a problem with template no. 30, "Goods Sidings" which is a transition curve and shows a minimum radius of 12.6 inches! It would be possible to move this closer to the main lines but I'd prefer to keep the distance to remain closer to the prototype layout. Don't worry about the runaround loops - they may never get built: it's the station and goods and maintenance sidings that need to be done first... I await any comments. Regards, Neil |
||
Attachment: attach_1091_1527_Crianlarich_Final.box 368 | |||
posted: 4 Jun 2011 22:25 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Neil One of my favourite stations. Have memories of a B1 and Standard 5 double-heading through there. Should make a terrific model. One question; did the link to the Oban line ever get used much in NBR or even LMS days? I had the impression that the West Highland and Callendar & Oban ran almost independantly until the Callender to Crianlarich bit closed, but I could be wrong. Or are you adapting things so that both lines ran through the one station? It'd be nice if you could get the viaduct in somewhere, even if it's on a curve at the end of the room. Cheers Nigel |
||
posted: 4 Jun 2011 22:26 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
NeilD wrote:I particularly have a problem with template no. 30, "Goods Sidings" which is a transition curve and shows a minimum radius of 12.6 inches!Hello Neil, Should be an interesting layout! I had a play with that bit of track - it showed 12.6 inches because that was the radius! I have changed the yard point to a shorter switch and a curviform crossing - it makes a big difference! You will no doubt want to tweak the sidings and go through the rest of the geometry for similar opportunities - of which I think there might be quite a few! Best Wishes, Howard |
||
Attachment: attach_1092_1527_crianlarich_HB.box 277 | |||
posted: 4 Jun 2011 22:36 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
NeilD wrote:I particularly have a problem with template no. 30, "Goods Sidings" which is a transition curve and shows a minimum radius of 12.6 inches!Hi Neil, Thanks for uploading. It really is 12.6" radius. I suggest doing this: 1. Change the B-6 turnout to a 12ft switch. You shouldn't really be using REA switches in the NBR period anyway. 2. Change it to 1:5.5 crossing angle. 3. Change it to a curviform type V-crossing. All that produces a turnout radius of about 43" 4. Move the turnout back a little bit. 5. do tools > make branch track. 6. do make transition from there to the existing goods road. This is what it would then look like, after a bit of trial and error: 2_041734_340000000.png regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 5 Jun 2011 09:17 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello again Neil, I had another quick look while waiting for the coffee to brew, and spotted that the exit to the loop platform had a 27" radius curve. This is a second version of the box I posted last night with that sorted out. Perhaps I might suggest that you are falling into a bit of a trap of over using F6 to curve very short transition curves to make formations fit - this creates very sharp radius curves very quickly. Personally, I prefer (in a station area) to get all the geometry roughly right using "bits of track" made up of circular curves and then joining them up using transitions - or even F7 snap. After all, in low speed areas in pre-group era, transition curves must have been non-existent in the real thing! (but they do look good on a model:-) ) I am also very worried by you double slip - the slip road is less that 36" radius and, even with moving Ks, it would be difficult to build and potentially very unreliable. I would be tempted to straighten it out. Certainly, build that first and make sure it works before you build anything else (speaking from my past (bad) experience) - picture below! Good Luck! Howard |
||
Attachment: attach_1096_1527_Crianlarich_HB_2.box 264 | |||
posted: 5 Jun 2011 09:24 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
JFS wrote:(speaking from my past (bad) experience) - picture below! 1129_050419_400000000.jpg Every thing on this layout worked fine EXCEPT the three way in the far distance and the double slip - now I am always wary of such things! Best wishes, Howard |
||
posted: 5 Jun 2011 10:03 from: wcampbell23
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Neil Did Crianlarich really have a double slip at the junction? All the photos and drawings I recall show a scissors crossing type arrangement. There is a good signalling diagram here: http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=154 Also an aerial photograph of the current layout (much simplified to two turnouts toe to toe) here: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/777672 May I suggest considering changing your viewpoint so that the west side of the station is on the inside of the oval? This would provide a better fit to the approach from Glen Falloch and the curve down to the C&O line into the space that you have and may ease some of the issues with radii. Regards Bill Campbell |
||
Last edited on 5 Jun 2011 10:32 by wcampbell23 |
|||
posted: 5 Jun 2011 10:36 from: NeilD click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Howard, Thank you for all the time you've taken to look at the plan and for your amendments and comments. I'll try to take them all on board and look to rework most of the points you've raised, particularly the double slip. I've used the F6s to try and make it all fit into a manageable space - the layout will be in the loft and there is a finite amount of space available. I had thought of using helixes (helixii?) to minimise the area for the runaround but given the radii required this doesn't actually save much space. (I could leave out the runarounds all together but my original thought was that they would make operation easier.) The transition curve on the platform does look good on the plan but it would probably have been easier to do by chopping it into smaller bits as was probably originally laid. It is a large project to start on but I have a particular affection for the West Highland line and Crianlarich gives a good degree of complexity other than just a through station like most of the others. (I don't fancy building a terminus!) Regards, Neil |
||
posted: 5 Jun 2011 10:46 from: NeilD click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote:NeilD wrote:I particularly have a problem with template no. 30, "Goods Sidings" which is a transition curve and shows a minimum radius of 12.6 inches!Hi Neil, Martin, Thanks for the suggested amendment to correct the impossible radius (even Mr Hornby couldn't have imagined that!!). I also note your comment about REA Switches and I'll reconsider these. Howard has also questioned the viability of the double slip and I'll also re-consider building a scissors there instead. I'll post an updated plan when I've made all of the amendments that have been suggested. Regards, |
||
posted: 5 Jun 2011 13:30 from: Alan Turner
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Examining your plan suggests that you are sticking templates together rather than developing the geometry and then inserting the crossing work. I think you will get a better result if you do the latter. I have had a go, using the signal diagram as a guide. 42_050828_360000000.png Alan |
||
Last edited on 6 Jun 2011 09:40 by Alan Turner |
|||
posted: 5 Jun 2011 17:16 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
wcampbell23 wrote: Did Crianlarich really have a double slip at the junction?I would agree with that. I remember making the track for a friend's layout of the station and the major feature was the large, open scissors crossover at the north end of the station. Jim. |
||
posted: 15 Jun 2011 11:45 from: NeilD click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi All, I've tried to take on board all of the comments and feedback I've received and spent a lot of time rebuilding the trackplan to try and take them into account. The revised plan is attached. Howard: I've adopted your suggested approach to the Down Platform and built it from bits - I'm not sure if I'll stick with this or revert to the transition curve in my initial plan... Howard, Bill and Jim: thanks for pointing out the problems of getting a curved crossover to function effectively and the fact that the prototype used a scissors crossing instead. (I've directly lifted and used a curved scissors built by John Preston: topic_465&forum_id=12&zoom_highlight=scissors - hope you don't mind John ) I know the curved scissors is not prototypically correct but it does suit the roundy-roundy bit quite well. Bill: I want to keep the east side inside the oval to show the "Crianlarich feature" on the hillside behind the Station/yard complex and it hides the oval as well. See the photo for what I mean: reply.php[img]"> 1466_150605_430000000.jpg Or see http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/details/955485/ for a larger version. Alan: You're right. I am sticking templates together rather than developing the geometry and then inserting the crossing work. This matches my level of competence and I think it stillloooks like a trackplan rather than a trainset. I think I've made a huge step forward from the initial plan that I posted and would like to thank you for your comments so far and will welcome any further comments/criticisms/feedback that anyone may have. Thanks and regards, Neil |
||
Attachment: attach_1102_1527_Crianlarich_working_6.box 258 | |||
posted: 15 Jun 2011 15:22 from: John Preston
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Neil I am delighted that the curved scissors crossing can be of use to you. In my mind, this is what the forum is all about. Regards John |
||
Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so. |