Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 1762Fourgig East - a Quandry
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 3 Jan 2012 15:31

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I've posted this to RMweb too, but I'd appreciate input from folks on here too:

I'm in two minds with the trackplan. At the "dead end" of the station area I currently have a very short 1:4 point to maximise the length of loco that can clear the switch blades and run round the train. This has resulted in an ugly curved section with a pretty tight radius between the point and the double slip as the slip is based on 1:6 diamonds. If I replace the 1:4 with a 1:6 and make the section between the point and slip straight it looks much better, but I'll only ever be able to fit an 0-4-0 or maybe just an 0-6-0 tank into the "headshunt".

I've attached both .box files, the "plus" one is the one that will mean extending beyond the current baseboard edge


So, do I knock a hole in the sidescene and have say a 12" bolt on single track "fiddle yard" and have the prettier track arrangement? I'd have to hide the exit with trees or somesuch scenic device, or maybe resite the signal box to the other side of the tracks.

Or is it just too contrived and would make the layout more awkward to fit into exhibition plans with an extra foot being needed just for a sticky out bit of track???
Attachment: attach_1291_1762_fourgig_east_extended_engine_shed.box 345

posted: 3 Jan 2012 15:32

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
here's the second .box file
Attachment: attach_1292_1762_fourgig_east_extended_engine_shed_plus.box 288

posted: 3 Jan 2012 17:14

from:

wcampbell23
 
Hamilton, Scotland - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Have you considered replacing the slip with two separate turnouts? This would not greatly affect the run-round loop and give you more flexibility for the release crossover. At the end of the platform road you could maximise the space for a loco by installing a minimal buffer stop such as this one at Bodmin General: 54_031213_080000000.jpg54_031213_080000000.jpg Regards Bill Campbell.
Last edited on 3 Jan 2012 17:16 by wcampbell23
posted: 3 Jan 2012 17:36

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Nice photo Bill, I'd already planned saomething similar for the buffer stop. The main reason for the double slip was to fit it all in, but to be honest I hadn't tried two points, I'll have a play tomorrow - will make the construction easier!

posted: 3 Jan 2012 18:10

from:

Glen Suckling
 
Oswego - New York USA

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
If your equipment can run over a #4 turnout why not make a #4 double slip? that should save some space which can be added to the engine release and will look better. Whatever you do, aestetically the turnout and the slip should have the same angle otherwise you will end up with an ugly reverse curve which is probably harder on the running quality of the track than a small radius turnout.

posted: 3 Jan 2012 19:13

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I tried a #4 diamond but it's too tight for a slip, the K crossing would have been all but unworkable - Martin recommended that I go for a #6 ....

topic 1673


It has to sit where it is too because of a baseboard joint too!
Last edited on 4 Jan 2012 08:20 by RedgateModels
posted: 4 Jan 2012 08:18

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Bill,

tried a couple of very short 1:4 points today, but they won't fit. There is a baseboard joint at the 7 foot mark and because of the track separation between the platform road and the run-round I need a short straight section between the existing point and it's pair in the crossover, pushing it too far across. Nice thought though ...

posted: 4 Jan 2012 08:46

from:

Jim Guthrie
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
RedgateModels wrote:
Hi Bill,

tried a couple of very short 1:4 points today, but they won't fit. There is a baseboard joint at the 7 foot mark and because of the track separation between the platform road and the run-round I need a short straight section between the existing point and it's pair in the crossover, pushing it too far across. Nice thought though ...
There's nothing to stop you putting a turnout across a baseboard gap if that would help matters if you use two turnouts instead of a slip.  If you get the gap sited between the heel of the switch and the crossing nose of a turnout,  it just means that you have four rail joints to deal with rather than two.    I don't know where your baseboard joints are exactly.  Do you have a BGS file of the baseboard outlines?

Jim.

posted: 4 Jan 2012 08:59

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Good point, the baseboard joint is on the 7 foot mark on the plan. The adjoining baseboard already exists and track is laid, so the main platform road and the run-round road are laid from the 3 foot to the 7 foot mark on the plan. I really don't want to start digging up track (yes it's ballasted, wired etc) as it stands I'm going to have to remove some ballast where the new diverging route to the goods and engine sheds combs into the existing track just before the slip. Having said that, I'll have a go ;)

posted: 4 Jan 2012 09:47

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Ian,

Are you sure you need a separate yard headshunt on such a small plan? You could shunt to the main line, and that would leave the existing headshunt free as an extra siding.

That would also mean that only a single slip is needed. There is just about room to get an an outside slip road in, and some much easier turnout sizes:

2_040441_510000000.png2_040441_510000000.png


If there is a baseboard join at the 7ft mark you would need to move the whole plan about an inch to the left -- and some very careful carpentry to put the joint through an outside slip:  :)

2_040440_560000000.png2_040440_560000000.png

regards,

Martin.

posted: 4 Jan 2012 09:53

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
hmmmm, still a no-goer, the V ends up right next to the joint even if I overlap the two toe ends by a couple of sleepers.

I have been playing with the #6 turnout though and fiddling around with the switch options I have managed to scrape a bit more off the length and without any baseboard additions I have 10" of release road from blade tip to end of the line. Take say 1" off for a half buffer stop and I easily have room to fit the largest "home" loco into the release (a 57xx tank)

If I make the scenery etc expandable I have the option to add another 12" of baseboard on later if I see the need for a longer release. In the meantime I will have to use a station pilot to release longer locos by shunting the stock into the run round - will make for interesting shunting at a show if nothing else :thumb:

Think my mind's almost made up, looks like I have to reprint some plans!

Edit:

Thanks for your input Martin, we must have been posting at the same time! is that outside slip a #4 or #6? as I really don't want to disturb the existing track on the section from 3 foot to 7 foot on the plan

As you know, the original idea was just for a single slip, but as I'm doing a single, why not the whole hog and have maximum operational flexibility?, ok I appreciate with an outside slip I'd need another two motors
Last edited on 4 Jan 2012 10:12 by RedgateModels
posted: 4 Jan 2012 10:10

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
RedgateModels wrote:
Thanks for your input Martin, we must have been posting at the same time! is that outside slip a #4 or #6? as I really don't want to disturb the existing track on the section from 3 foot to 7 foot on the plan
Hi Ian,

I did it quickly in TDV :) -- it's an irregular diamond left to right:  4.59  5.02  5.6

The lower turnout is 1:6 with a 12ft switch.

I intended it only to convey the idea -- were you to actually go with such a plan it would need to be re-done more carefully, and adjusted for the optimum fit at the board joint.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 4 Jan 2012 10:17

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Show off :thumb: TBH I think I'm pretty happy with the double slip and GWR 9ft heel - 6. Current stock will fit and I always have scope to expand the layout by a few feet should I ever have the need to run a 9F into the station.

Good fun this layout design - Summat Colliery was already done for me in Peco code 75 so I didn't have all these things to consider :LOL:
Attachment: attach_1294_1762_fourgig_east_extended_engine_shed_plus.box 256
Last edited on 4 Jan 2012 10:48 by RedgateModels
posted: 4 Jan 2012 10:54

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
For reference, the attached .box file represents the track that has already been laid
Attachment: attach_1295_1762_mini1.box 246

posted: 4 Jan 2012 12:15

from:

LSWRArt
 
Antibes - France

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Did the GWR ever use traversers? I have the same problem on my LSW layout and there was a traverser at Crystal Palace and another at Ventnor, so some justification for using one on my layout. I hope to post a preliminary plan in the next week for everyone to comment on.
Best,
Arthur

posted: 4 Jan 2012 13:15

from:

Pete Williams
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Arthur,

To the best of my limited knowledge I can think of only Birmingham Moor Street, of course Swindon works had a few:D

Pete Williams

posted: 4 Jan 2012 13:38

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Ian,

If you haven't built it yet, the #4 regular turnout in the yard can be much improved by changing to #5 curviform:

2_040832_020000000.png2_040832_020000000.png

2_040832_030000001.png2_040832_030000001.png

template > V-crossing options > 1:5 , curviform

CTRL+F9 to roam it back into alignment with the siding.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 4 Jan 2012 13:46

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
No not built yet Martin, thanks will have play :)

posted: 4 Jan 2012 14:07

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
All done, I take it that switch option was better as the turnout had been given a slight curve?

I only have one 1:4 now and that's the one that's already built from a Waverley kit. Must start having a go at filing up some Vs before Mansfield Show in March :thumb:
Attachment: attach_1296_1762_fourgig_east_extended_engine_shed_plus.box 212
Last edited on 4 Jan 2012 14:07 by RedgateModels
posted: 4 Jan 2012 14:52

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Arthur

As Pete says, Birmingham Moor Street. C.J.Freezer once designed a plan based on it.

Cheers
Nigel

posted: 4 Jan 2012 17:06

from:

John Lewis
 
Croydon - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Pete wrote: To the best of my limited knowledge I can think of only Birmingham Moor Street, of course Swindon works had a few.


The Great Western Society at Didcot has one by their carriage shed, but I do not know where they got it from.

posted: 4 Jan 2012 17:32

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
RedgateModels wrote:
I've posted this to RMweb too, but I'd appreciate input from folks on here too:

Hi. I'm not sure what you're aiming for with the track plan. Is it a through station or a terminus? Has it one platform or two?

If it's a simple terminus with just one platform at the bottom, I wonder if re-arranging the sidings might improve things. Having the engine shed at the end of a long siding (looking at the labels I think that's what you're doing) is somewhat unusual. How about making the short siding below the long siding the engine shed road? And also taking the short siding off the loop road? In that way you would have a reasonably long goods road at the top, which could come off the loop road anywhere, which might ease things a bit. Just an idea.

Cheers
Nigel

posted: 4 Jan 2012 19:19

from:

RedgateModels
 
Mansfield - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks for the ideas Nigel, the station is a terminus of a heritage railway. The short siding is for the goods shed which I think should be closer to the station than the engine shed. If you want to get more information about the layout check out my blog on RMweb http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/534-fourgig-east/

posted: 4 Jan 2012 20:50

from:

Dasatcopthorne
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Jim Guthrie wrote:
RedgateModels wrote:
Hi Bill,

tried a couple of very short 1:4 points today, but they won't fit. There is a baseboard joint at the 7 foot mark and because of the track separation between the platform road and the run-round I need a short straight section between the existing point and it's pair in the crossover, pushing it too far across. Nice thought though ...
There's nothing to stop you putting a turnout across a baseboard gap if that would help matters if you use two turnouts instead of a slip.  If you get the gap sited between the heel of the switch and the crossing nose of a turnout,  it just means that you have four rail joints to deal with rather than two.    I don't know where your baseboard joints are exactly.  Do you have a BGS file of the baseboard outlines?

Jim.
Bill.

Here's my effort at crossing a baseboard joint with a scissors crossover.

1501_041549_070000000.jpg1501_041549_070000000.jpg

The joint is at the very bottom of the image.

Dave Smith

 



Templot Club > Forums > Share and show > Fourgig East - a Quandry
about Templot Club

Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines

back to top of page


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.
The small print: All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted. The owner of this web site is not responsible for any content displayed here other than his own contributions. The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason. Problems with this web site? Contact webmaster@templot.com.   This web site uses cookies: click for information.  
© 2020  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems