Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 15 Nov 2007 21:18 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dear all, Here is the design of the fiddle yard on our P4 layout, Mostyn, as it will shortly become following two minor modifications: - the introduction of road 17 as a loop from road 16 - the introduction of a trailing siding from road 16 for the storage of light engines I'm afraid that not all of the scenic section of Mostyn was 'templotted' - some of it dates from the dark and distant age when we played with paper templates before realising that the complex areas would need the help of Templot. The ruling minimum radius on this design is 1200mm. Regards, Richard |
||
| Attachment: attach_128_236_Mostyn_Revised17+newsiding_Nov07.box 567 | |||
|
posted: 15 Nov 2007 21:31 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dear all, Following on from my first posting here is the design of the baseboards for Mostyn - hopefully showing how tightly packed the fiddle yard is and, now that we're reaching the capacity of the existing fiddle yard, why our thoughts are turning to building a second fiddle yard parallel to the first. mostyn_fiddle.png  Regards, Richard |
||
| Attachment: attach_129_236_Existing_Mostyn_Boards.bgs 482 | |||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 02:34 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard Oldfield wrote: Following on from my first posting here is the design of the baseboards for Mostyn - hopefully showing how tightly packed the fiddle yard is and, now that we're reaching the capacity of the existing fiddle yard, why our thoughts are turning to building a second fiddle yard parallel to the first.Hi Richard, Many thanks for posting this. Mostyn has become well known and much admired on the exhibition circuit, so it's great that you have made the Templot files available for others to use. It's amazing to see how you have packed every available inch of baseboard with track for the fiddle yard. Please keep us posted with developments.  Those wishing to see more can find Mostyn at Barrowmore Group. Here's one of many fine pictures of Mostyn linked from that site: Mostyn01GB.jpg  regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 06:05 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dear all, To bring the plans to life here is a shot of the Mostyn fiddle yard taken at the recent Blackburn exhibition. We now need to approximately double the amount of storage road capacity (to meet the planned stock build over the next five years or so). We're only just at the planning stage for this expansion so anyone on this forum who is interested is more than welcome to provide suggestions or make comments (by all means use the templot already posted and have a go at designing the fiddle yard expansion). There are some limitations on the design of the new storage roads:- - we cannot extend the straight sections of the layout since the straight scenic part is an accurate re-creation of the prototype. - the layout has exhibition commitments for the new few years (when the extension is planned to be built) and has to be kept 'on the circuit' whilst the majority of the new construction takes place. At this stage we think a new fiddle yard of similar dimensions to the existing one - but built about a metre behind it and accessed via double junctions may be the best solution. Regards, Richard |
||
| Attachment: attach_130_236_fiddleyard2.jpg 3196 | |||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 07:16 from: Russ E click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard Oldfield wrote: - we cannot extend the straight sections of the layout since the straight scenic part is an accurate re-creation of the prototype.Try extending the straight sections in the other plane? mostyn-amended.png  |
||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 07:28 from: Russ E click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
stubbie-mk2-rotate.gif I think these would be good for a scale 80mph. Russ (pic of constructed mk1 stubbie coming up when I get it together with the digital camera) |
||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 08:06 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard Oldfield wrote: We now need to approximately double the amount of storage road capacity (to meet the planned stock build over the next five years or so). We're only just at the planning stage for this expansion so anyone on this forum who is interested is more than welcome to provide suggestions or make comments (by all means use the templot already posted and have a go at designing the fiddle yard expansion).Hi Richard, idea no. 1 If you move the existing boards back by about 2 metres, you will only need to build two new plain track linking boards initially to keep everything moving. Then you can build a new inner fiddle yard at your leisure. A full 2 metre move gives you some extra operating space to get at the stock more easily than doubling the existing fiddle yard width. Something like this: mostyn_fiddle_new.png  regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 16:32 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Russ, Thanks for your thoughts. I think you are on the 'right track' with your idea of extending the scenic sections down each side and then building a double junction leading to a new fiddle yard outside the existing one. It has the advantage that we could finish the new scenic parts in stages e.g. do the 'Holyhead end first and then the 'Chester' end second. There's no problem in losing the section you identify - it is where the dock branch joins the fiddle yard and we will re-position this to lead into the new fiddle yard. We're not too worried about the need for high speed turnouts - in our experience, as long as we keep within the 1200 minimum radius constraint, then trains will happily run at way over maximum line speed. The Holyhead-Euston express, long-term resident on road 16, regularly negotiates the trailing and facing A6 part of the tandem turnout plus return curve without difficulties. As long as we keep the double junction in the fiddle yard rather than as part of the scenic section then we don't need to worry about appearances. We also need to bear in mind possible constraints with exhibition managers and keep overall dimensions as reasonable as possible. This means that I would like to be as tight as possible with the additional depth allocated to the new fiddle yard and as generous as possible with any new scenic sections. Another constraint to think about:- One of the design weaknesses of the current layout are the two short boards which the tandem turnouts sit on. They made a lot of sense bearing in mind the space limitations of the room that Mostyn was originally built in but they are the only boards which do not have legs. We would like to remedy this by adding, say, another equal section to make them 1200 x 900 overall - which is about the maximum weight of board that we would like to handle given Mostyn's heavyweight construction techniques. We could be persuaded to extend this slightly if it meant that we could get the double junction and the tandem 3-ways on the same board Regards, Richard |
||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 16:57 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, I really like this idea because it keeps the layout within the current 6600mm width which seems to be very convenient for siting purposes on the end of internal aisles at exhibitions - thus giving the spectator the ability to view Mostyn on three sides. However, when I've thought about it in more detail (but not yet attempted to Templot it), I've always assumed there would be a considerable reduction in the total amount of storage space that would be created - the turnouts for each fiddle yard road would effectively be 'pushed' further round into the storage roads themselves in comparison with the design of the existing fiddle yard. We have a projected stock build which will require an amount of storage space which is at least equal to that we have at present so a reduction in effective capacity in the new fiddle yard would not work. Another design constraint:- It is assumed that we will, as far as possible, end up with straight sections of new fiddle yard containing 17 roads each at 50mm centres thus giving us the capability, at some future date, of combining existing and new fiddle yard straight sections to give us a longer storage design for a new layout. Always assuming enough of us live that long !! Thanks for your thoughts. Regards, Richard |
||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 18:11 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard, Apropos your last posting, and referring back to Martin's proposed new trackplan, may I expand on something that we briefly touched on when speaking at the Farnham-at-Aldershot show? It seems to me that you lose quite a lot by crossing the outer track on the flat over the inner track and then fanning out into the red loops, in terms of: a) # of loops, b) length of loops, c) conflicting movements. On the other hand, you do leave the operating characteristics of the existing FY (7 up, 7 down, 3 reversible) untouched. An alternative scheme might be to: 1. Modify Martin's plan to augment the 7 green loops with 10 more, also taken off the inner (green) main line straights. That would give you your 17 anti-clockwise (I'm not sure about which are the up/down directions) loops. 2. Have the red main line (clockwise) straights fan into two roads in order to mate with the existing FY feeds (orange and blue) and use all 17 loops of that in a clockwise direction. 3. In order to provide reversal, make the red to orange/blue fans into crossovers, facing on left, trialing on right. Still do 2. above, inner straight road of crossovers are part of green main, which will allow the 7 blue plus 3 yellow loops to be used for reversal. Sum total: 17 clockwise loops, 17 anticlockwise loops (no conflicting movements), of which the inner 10 of the clockwise loops can be used for reversal. The 17 new green loops would not have to be built immediately as the new 'vertical' sections would still allow the existing usages. The 7 existing blue loops would perhaps require electrical mods in order to be usable reversibly, depending on your control system? Would you get adequate lengths? Looking back to your original as-now plan, perhaps the anti-clockwise loops would come out somwhat short, particularly if there were the desired 17 of them. Variation..... Starting with the original plan, follow Russ's idea about going OUTSIDE, perhaps you could do what I've attempted to describe above but inside-out. Don't take TWO tracks outside over a DJ, just take single leads of the clockwise (orange) main, squeeze across the 'short siding' corners without any increase in overall width, and provide 17 new clockwise loops on new baseboards outside. Should avoid length limiting issues, compared to going 'inside'. All 17 existing loops become anti-clockwise. As before, reversibility of 10 of these loops could be achieved via simple crossovers, making orange and yellow loops reversible. Sorry, I can't produce Templot plans to show these ideas. Regards, Rodney Hills |
||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 22:44 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Richard, The problem with the double junctions (or single-lead junctions if preferred), whether inside or outside is that they are going to be a major operating headache for conflicting moves into and out of the fiddle yards. That's ok if they are in a visible scenic section, so folks can see trains held at signals for a reason, but delays caused by an invisible double junction are more difficult to explain. You can hardly have exactly symmetrical double junctions at both ends of the layout in view. So I think Rodney's suggestion is inspired and the best so far -- use the existing fiddle yard for the clockwise running and build a new inner one for anticlockwise running. Then there are no conflicting moves, and the new anticlockwise roads won't be any shorter than the existing ones. If you are looking for additional scenic sections, you could move everything back a few feet and introduce some plain track boards, possibly with a nice long sweeping transition curve into the existing curves at the front. If this was conventional DC, swapping the direction of half a fiddle yard might be a headache, but presumably with DCC it would require no physical changes to the wiring, just some re-programming of the point motors? regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 23:17 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Richard, I've assumed so far that you are looking for an all-level solution? If not, there are other interesting possibilities. The existing bi-directional roads could be ramped up from each end and swing round to access a new bi-directional high-level fiddle yard across the middle of the layout area. Using the existing bi-directional connections would involve some operational conflicts over the single-track ramped sections, but remain entirely clear of the existing up and down yards access. I think you can get about 5 metres of ramp to say 75mm clearance, which means 1:65 as a ruling gradient. Would that be ok for your motive power? As the ramps are out of view, you might experiment with running a lathe knurling tool along the rail tops to increase adhesion. It's all a lot of carpentry, but you could have say 18 new fiddle yard roads with the operational flexibility of all of them being bi-directional. The downside might be taking two of the existing three bi-directional roads out of use while you build the ramps. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 17 Nov 2007 18:42 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Rodney, It's nice to meet up with you again (albeit in cyberspace). Thank you for taking the trouble to think about the challenges of extending Mostyn's fiddle yard capacity Your approach effectively allocates one fiddle yard per direction. The appeal of this is that it is easy to understand and control. Furthermore the turnout control and wiring of the existing fiddle yard is such that it could be converted to single direction running with no problems - apart from, perhaps, a bit of switch rail fettling on turnouts that changed from trailing to facing in normal operation. This approach has previously been suggested by one of the Mostyn operating team members but I remain to be unconvinced and my logic (unsupported as yet by any attempt to use Templot to prove it) is as follows:- 1. Putting the new fiddle yard inside the existing one doesn't work because it doesn't deliver sufficient storage space. Then, looking at the option which has the new fiddle yard outside the existing one:- 2. In order to bring the existing fiddle yard into use as the new down fiddle yard (Up = Clockwise = towards Chester, Down = Anti-clockwise = towards Holyhead), you would need to add in a 'conversion' board at each end whose sole purpose was to split the down line into two leads feeding each of the tandem turnouts. There is quite a gap between the two running lines at the end of the scenic section (it represents the formation of a de-quadrified main line) and to cross this gap it will be necessary to sacrifice new scenic expansion in order to commit it to the 'conversion' board. I recognise that, by making this a crossover and so retaining the link to the existing up line, you introduce many more bi-directional roads but we do not envisage a need for this beyond the existing three roads that are already bi-directional 3. Part of the justification for going down the route of 'one fiddle yard per direction' is that it avoids the potential conflicts associated with a double junction. How important is that as a consideration? There would be no conflict if the existing Up and Down were being used, no conflict if the new Up and old Down were being used, no conflict if the new Up and Down were being used. We only create new conflicting moves if we attempt to use the new Down and the old Up together. Our wiring guru thinks it is not too difficult to prevent this happening by using the lie of the double junction turnouts to disable sections of the fiddle yard. 4. There is a further reason for wanting Up and Down sections in the new fiddle yard and this relates to our desire to re-create more authentic use of the exchange sidings and dock branch as part of the proposed extension. I haven't explained this requirement yet (there's only so much you can do at a time) but i'll go through it later in this thread. Regards, Richard |
||
|
posted: 17 Nov 2007 19:12 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Hi Richard, Hi Martin, I've hopefully covered some of the points you raise in my reply to Rodney - his proposal is certainly very interesting and I'm going to think a lot more about it. Perhaps, naively, I think we can control the possible conflicting moves without too much trouble - after all the use of the existing bi-directional roads is full of potential problems and yet we seem to have solved it by the relatively simple expedient of having a bi-directional roads 'Token' - the possession of which allows either the Up or Down operator to use the formations in those roads for any movement in their direction, safe in the knowledge that the other operator does not have the token. One of the challenges of Mostyn is to keep the level of intellectual challenge for the operating team sufficently high such that it is a challenging and rewarding layout to operate. That's why we still have the driver and signalman functions combined. We rely on the BR rule books and other manuals to guide our activities and (this will not come as a surprise to any professional railwayman on this group) the more we become au fait with the BR rules, the safer our operating becomes. The other big challenge of Mostyn is to make sure that operating Mostyn does not become too challenging and thus stressful at exhibitions. If we can strike a happy balance with the extension then we'll have achieved our objective. We are thinking very carefully about the options for expansion and I appreciate the opportunity to get input and comments from the forum. Regards, Richard ps Mostyn is DCC for driving trains and for some turnouts (in the scenic exchange sidings) but the fiddle yard is controlled via a traditional switched panel - there will be no difficulties if we convert to one direction running in the existing fiddle yard. |
||
|
posted: 17 Nov 2007 19:18 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Hi Richard,Martin, We've always assumed the gradients required to get to a new level are such that we wont be going for a bi-level solution. As you say it would also require an amount of skilled carpentry that might be better invested in more boards on one level. It's an intriguing thought, though. Does anyone know of a P4 layout with reasonable gradients? - the most we can manage is a drop and rise of 3mm over about a metre of the dock branch. Regards, Richard |
||
|
posted: 17 Nov 2007 19:31 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dear all, In part of my reply to Rodney's suggestion about going for fiddle yards that worked in one direction only I referred to a potential problem that this might create with our proposal to introduce more authentic working of the exchange sidings and dock branch. It's only fair that I explain what this is (giving Rodney or anyone else) the opportunity to see whether workable solutions exist for his proposal that would accommodate our traffic needs. First of all I'm posting a sketch of the scenic section so the full layout can be envisaged. I'll follow on with an explanation of the dock traffic later. Regards, Richard |
||
| Attachment: attach_135_236_Mostynplan1.jpg 2821 | |||
|
posted: 17 Nov 2007 19:55 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard Oldfield wrote: Does anyone know of a P4 layout with reasonable gradients? - the most we can manage is a drop and rise of 3mm over about a metre of the dock branch.Hi Richard, I don't understand -- that's only about 1:300 ?  Surely you can do better than that?On Adavoyle Junction the main line gradients are 1:100 on easy curves and the Monaghan Branch gradient is 1:60 and sharply curved. Your gradients would be mostly straight. We have never noticed any problems on the main lines, in fact often new operators are not aware that there is a gradient. On the branch line we have occasionally run 6 of Tony's quite heavy coaches up the bank, although it does slow the loco down a bit. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 17 Nov 2007 20:35 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Richard Oldfield wrote:Does anyone know of a P4 layout with reasonable gradients? - the most we can manage is a drop and rise of 3mm over about a metre of the dock branch.Hi Richard, Hi Martin, Sorry I was being a bit clumsy with my wording - what I should have said is that all we have on the layout is a couple of slight inclines on the dock branch (to do no more than bury the sleepers under a roadway. Mostyn on the prototype is dead level so there was never any need for us to explore the workability of gradients. We can, however, detect the change in a difficult train's performance if we do not level the boards carefully (e.g. a heavy rake of Mark 1s with a relatively weak loco). Dave Goodwin and I (and other members of our group) are very keen to come down and see Adavoyle Junction - Tony has already come to visit us at Barrowmore so we're overdue making the return visit. Regards, Richard |
||
|
posted: 18 Nov 2007 04:07 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard Oldfield wrote: We've always assumed the gradients required to get to a new level are such that we wont be going for a bi-level solution. As you say it would also require an amount of skilled carpentry that might be better invested in more boards on one level.Hi Richard, Here you go -- idea no. 2 mostyn_hi_level.png  The inner green ramp is the slightly shorter of the two. From the toe of the turnout at A to requiring a clearance at B is 6080mm. Deduct say 250mm for half of the vertical curve at A and you have an effective ramp length of 5830mm. If you design the bridge at B for minimal construction depth (say a U-channel fabricated in copper laminate with the rails soldered directly to the deck) I think you could get away with say 65mm lift at B. That gives you a gradient of 65/5830 = 1:90 gradient, and most of it on the straight. The gradient would then continue up to the hi-level fiddle yard at say 80mm above base. You gain some additional scenic space at each side -- how much depends how far back you move the whole set of fiddle yards. You could get a lot more scenic section by keeping the high-level tracks inside the low-level main lines on one or both sides, but that shortens the fiddle yard capacity. I widened out the main lines each side just to see how it looked. Just an idea. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 18 Nov 2007 04:45 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Richard, A further thought. Your existing boards have room for 3 bi-directional roads. With some tweaking of the design you might be able to fit a complete oval at the high-level, via a high-level track just outboard of the yellow ramp. This would give you a continuous-run means of testing stock without interfering with operations on the front of the layout. Martin. |
||
|
posted: 18 Nov 2007 19:32 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote:
Hi Martin, Wow!!  My 'know your limits' head can see all manner of questions and potential problems but my 'playing trains' head says I want it now! I looked at this briefly last night and the obvious advantages are:- - the overall footprint of the layout is still OK - no problems with storage (you could use the long approaches from the new fiddle yard to the scenic section for stacking trains waiting to enter the scenic section. The questions are:- - could we do this at the same time as keeping the existing layout on the exhibition circuit? - do we need to change all our end protectors and stacking arrangements to cope with the additional height on many boards? - how would you operate it? Finally there is the 'docks traffic' question that I still need to explain. Regards, Richard |
||
|
posted: 18 Nov 2007 20:22 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dear all, The 'docks traffic' question (perhaps challenge would be a better word?). Mostyn is set during 1977 when there was far greater use of the exchange sidings than at present. Our existing layout enables us to replicate some of the movements that took place but, in an ideal world, the proposed extension should enable us to re-create them all. Firstly a couple of guidelines: 1. We do not handle stock - it gets put on the rails on the Friday night of a show and then, apart from loco cleaning / mishaps, it should not be touched again until it is put away on Sunday night. Coupling/uncoupling does not count as handling. 2. We do not load or offload wagons, preferring to build both empties and fulls if need be. Traffic using the exchange sidings in 1977 was of the following types:- a. Trains being set back to clear the main lines for higher priority traffic. b. Trains being set back to drop off a wagon or two that had shown faults during the journey (= cripples) c. Trip working No.37. A Class 25 turn which worked out from Chester as far as Mostyn if required and then returned towards Mold Junction and Chester. This working would do whatever was required at Mostyn including picking up cripples for maintenance/repair. d. Trip working No.47. A Class 40 turn which worked out from Llandudno Junction, calling at Mostyn to do whatever was required and then continued onwards to Mold Junction and Chester. e. Occasional van traffic between Mostyn docks and the Hotpoint factory at Llandudno Junction. f. Export steel traffic which came from the Chester direction to Mostyn Docks. The empties returned towards Chester. (Bogie Bolster Cs) g. Imported sulphur for Associated Octel at Amwlych. There was a pool of ex-ironstone hoppers based at Mostyn for the transport of powder sulphur from Mostyn Docks to Amwlych on Anglesey. Empties came from Amwlych to Mostyn Dock. Full hoppers either worked as a block train going back to Anglesey or were tripped to Mold Junction before returning back past Mostyn and onwards to Anglesey. Anyone wanting to see what this traffic looked like should explore http://www.2d53.co.uk or http://www.penmorfa.com/archive A Mostyn Docks shunter would be responsible for picking up wagons for the traffic at e/f/g above from the exchange sidings and taking them down the dock branch for loading/offloading. On our layout the dock branch runs parallel to the lines heading towards Chester and enters the fiddle yard. We are planning to allocate 3 of the new fiddle yard roads to dock traffic - some of them may need splitting into smaller lengths to reflect the relatively short train lengths. How do you fit the need to run these workings within the design for a new fiddle yard? We've been focussing on a modified version of the double junction/new outer fiddle yard proposal but maybe you can see an alternative? Regards, Richard |
||
| Attachment: attach_137_236_Mostynplan1.jpg 2729 | |||
|
posted: 18 Nov 2007 20:33 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard, Potentially a Wynne-ing breakthrough, eh :-) You wrote (snipped): The questions are:- - could we do this at the same time as keeping the existing layout on the exhibition circuit? - do we need to change all our end protectors and stacking arrangements to cope with the additional height on many boards Who says the new inclines have to be a integral part of the FY baseboards? Especially since they are single tracks rising in 'opposition'. Why not make them removable 'plug-in' strips of thin board liberally supported with piers, rather like cassettes? The whole thing resembling a gentler version of the proprietary 'high-level-systems' once made by eg Tri-ang in 00/H0 and currently made by Tomix in N? One idea for cheap, precision-engineered units for accurately constructing successively increasing-height piers is to employ stacked 2x8 (or 2x12=2x8 + 2x4 alternating bond) Lego bricks, full-height and 'thins' - quick to plug/unplug. By plugging-in to an empty space in the site of former 3 yellow reversible roads you could choose to configure the layout either: a. With the Wynne-cline OR b. with plug-in replicas of something closely resembling the existing 3 yellow reversible roads. I think it's what Iain Rice calls 'jig-saw' construction, but I call it 'train-set technology'. Regards, Rodney who was brought up on a diet of Hornby-Dublo 3-rail. Inclines NO problem ;-) |
||
|
posted: 18 Nov 2007 20:50 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard, I've just noticed you update re: 'Dock traffic question/challenge' I believe, recollecting seeing the layout, that the dock brach exits the front at around the lefthand edge near '1500'. The obvious non-conficting route to the new upper FY is round the outside, under the yellow elevated curve, then rising gently to join the green high level FY feed track to the right and below of the big B bubble, roughtly where the outer bulge of the green curve is. You COULD consider hanging a removable "sectional track" ramp cantilevered off the outer edge of the existing FY baseboards (consulting engineer: W. Heath Robinson ; - ) Regards, Rodney |
||
|
posted: 19 Nov 2007 06:03 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Richard, Idea no. 2a : mostyn_hi_level_docks.png  I have moved the left end of the new fiddle yard inboard of the main lines. This gives you a nice long piece of scenic section on the left. The downside is reduced fiddle yard capacity of course. A simple trade-off to ponder. The darker blue track is a complete ring at the high level. This gives you a continuous-run test track clear of the visible layout. There are crossovers connecting in to the outer fiddle yard road. With some "extreme carpentry" you could even fit in another orange road under the hi-level blue track. The pink track on the left is the docks branch rising to connect in to the high level ring. You would need some additional crossovers between dark blue and green at 5 o'clock to gain better access to the fiddle yard for docks traffic. Without knowing the layout better I can't answer about construction methods. I would think the main part of the new fiddle yard would be identical to the existing boards. The high-level pointwork could be on removable panels resting on blocks on the boards below. The ramps could be detachable constructed between plywood side walls. Just doodling in Templot -- feel free to ignore it completely. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 19 Mar 2008 17:22 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dear all, Apologies for not posting any recent updates to this topic but I've been distracted by stock-building for Mostyn and the construction of signals for our O Gauge Cambrian layout, Johnstown Road. We have now built and fitted the 3 new turnouts that will bring road 17 into use as a loop and give us an extra trailing siding. Standard copperclad turnout construction techniques have been used (as per the Iain Rice 'Building, Wiring and Laying PCB Track' book ISBN 1 900349 09 4). These three turnouts gave me a chance to use the Portsdown Models Crossing Vee and Switch Rail planing jigs for the first time and everything went smoothly though it pays to have good quality files such as the swiss files we use from Shesto. The turnouts were built directly onto Templot printouts which had been taped onto a flat surface. The layout was dismantled whilst the turnouts were being built and, whilst I was sort of confident that there would be no issues, it was nonetheless very satisfying to see they fitted perfectly in their intended positions when Mostyn was put up. The only 'b*ggering about' was to move the turnout actuation from directly beneath the trackwork to a position that was clear of the baseboard supporting framework. This was achieved by inserting spare lengths of rail into brass tube with the Tortoise actuation wire poked through a hole at one end of the rail and the tie-bar actuation wire soldered to the rail at the other end. Templot was vital to this completed project as we could experiment with various switch rail, crossing vee and turnout position combinations in order to find the optimum which gave us maximum new storage space whilst keeping within our 1200mm minimum radius rule and avoiding contact with the fiddle yard side walls. The image below shows 3-car Class 101 M50197/M59081/M50189 entering road 17 on a test train. mostyn_new_track.jpg  With the fiddle yard control panel now modified to reflect the new layout we're now ready for the next exhibition at Trainwest 17-18th May 2008. Having now squeezed every last inch of storage out of the existing boards, it's high time we made a start on the extension......... Cheers, Richard |
||
|
posted: 18 Mar 2009 23:18 from: Richard Oldfield click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dear all, It's been almost exactly one year since my last post on the challenges of how to develop our layout, Mostyn. We lost a lot of time in 2008 as the implications of the scale of the required build sank in. Competing ideas came and went. Project creep reared its ugly head as various 'bolt ons' were mooted and then abandoned. We finally started cutting timber just before Christmas 2008. If someone can remind me how to post Templot designs onto this forum then I can share our current thoughts with you. In the meantime here's an image of the second parallel fiddle yard under construction. Cheers, Richard |
||
| Attachment: attach_524_236_DSC_11771reduced.jpg 713 | |||
| 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. |