|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 28 Nov 2014 21:18 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I have a small collection of vintage stock, namely Jamieson locos and Ratio/CCW/Kings Cross coaches. Now the Minories plan would given that I have a small room the ability to run this old stock on a vintage designed plan. I have plenty of old track building parts so happy to make the turnouts The room being about 8' square would lend itself to a L shaped plan, with the turnouts on a curve. I think the curve may have to go down to 2.5' radius, just to give more room for the station and platforms. The initial question is what size turnouts did CJF use for the plan please I am thinking of the larger version S54 in the 1975 plan book. All thoughts and ideas are very welcome please |
||
Last edited on 28 Nov 2014 21:19 by Hayfield |
|||
posted: 29 Nov 2014 12:08 from: Simon Dunkley
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I suspect the smallest that Peco then produced, i.e. 2' radius. I base this on the fact that they don't up much space on his drawings. It is possible to replace two of the turnouts with a single slip (you could have a double slip but one side would never be used) to add a degree of compression to the plan, but it changes some of the curvature slightly. Edit: rough sketch added. |
||
Attachment: attach_1999_2584_Minories_compressed.png 1443 | |||
Last edited on 29 Nov 2014 12:33 by Simon Dunkley |
|||
posted: 29 Nov 2014 12:23 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Just looked at the 1989 plan book, in which I think S54 would be the same. In general terms, CJF tended to use Peco track as the basis, with 2' radius points the minimum unless otherwise stated. The introduction to the 1989 book confirms this. Also, each plan has a minimum radius specified which for S54 is 2'. Looking at S54, there's a double slip which would be 3' radius, and possibly the turnouts attached to that. The others might be 2' radius. The bit to the right of the diamond crossing near the top looks a bit cramped to me though. Not sure how easy it would be to bend it around a corner. The simpler version Plan SP36 (in the 1989 book) looks as though it might provide a better basis. I wouldn't be too constrained by the designs. Both plans were designed for a narrow straight portable baseboard, and a longer L shaped design has different constraints and opens up more opportunities. The distinctive feature of the design was that it allowed access to all roads from both inward and outward lines, and in the pointwork avoided reverse curves (except at one point). I'd suggest playing around with putting the pointwork on the curve of the L and seeing how it works out. |
||
Last edited on 29 Nov 2014 12:35 by Nigel Brown |
|||
posted: 29 Nov 2014 14:17 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I have had a quick look at some older turnouts I have. Both the Peco spiked point kit and the GEM turnout are about the same crossing angle as an A4.5 (albeit a bit shorter) A SMP and a Peco medium turnouts are similar angles as an A5. I have had a play with a plan using A5's and the complex after the crossover is just over 450mm to the platforms, though 600mm for the goods yard turnout on platform 3 I will need a 30" radius into the fiddle yard and there is plenty of room for larger radius curved turnouts. I have used 50mm track centres, but should I increase the gap, if yes what length |
||
Attachment: attach_2000_2584_00_gauge_Minories.box 288 | |||
Last edited on 29 Nov 2014 14:25 by Hayfield |
|||
posted: 29 Nov 2014 14:27 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Simon Thanks for the plan, I think I will be OK with turnouts as Double slips are a pain to build in code 100, all the 8 blades all have to be hinged to allow point motors to work them |
||
Last edited on 29 Nov 2014 14:30 by Hayfield |
|||
posted: 29 Nov 2014 15:01 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hayfield wrote: I have had a play with a plan using A5'sHi John, If you are tight for space, don't use A-5s. The A-switch is not natural with 1:5 V-crossings and produces a poorly-matched turnout design. Change to 9ft straight switches and you will not only save some space but also actually ease the radius. You might even be able to go to 9ft-4.5 if pushed. You don't have to build the 9ft switches with loose heels if you don't want to, just use the same geometry for flexible switches. 9ft switches have the same planing angle as A-switches, so you can use the same ready-made switch blades or filing jigs. p.s. why have you set the gauge to 00/H0? The running quality will be dire with 1.5mm flangeways. These are in 00-BF with regular V-crossings. You could ease the radius quite a bit by changing to generic V-crossings. 2_290953_300000000.png Notice that the 9ft-5 (at 2) is shorter than the A-5 (at 1) despite the radius being 3" larger. The 9ft-4.5 (at 3) is doable if space is very tight. regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 29 Nov 2014 17:17 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Hayfield wrote:MartinI have had a play with a plan using A5'sHi John, Thank you, these 9'5's are much nearer the Peco spiked turnouts (by the way these are 4mm scale unlike their RTR track, 4mm wide sleepers and slightly longer) and the GEM track. I have done a quick update on the plan, now what I need to decide is what radius to do the turnouts to fit either a 3' or 2.5' radius curve which will form a L shape into a fiddle yard |
||
Attachment: attach_2001_2584_00_gauge_Minories.box 293 | |||
posted: 30 Nov 2014 09:45 from: Simon Dunkley
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I know that you wish to avoid complex pointwork, but just for grins, have a look at this: http://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1772&p=14884&hilit=interlocking#p14780 |
||
posted: 30 Nov 2014 11:01 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Simon Dunkley wrote: I know that you wish to avoid complex pointwork, but just for grins, have a look at this: Thanks for the plug Simon! And, just by way of encouragement, here is the box file for it Best wishes, Howard |
||
Attachment: attach_2002_2584_minories_current_Timbering_v2.box 336 | |||
posted: 30 Nov 2014 12:55 from: Charles Orr
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Can anyone tell me if this plan would successfully convert to OO SF? The obvious answer is to try it I suppose. Best regards Charles |
||
posted: 30 Nov 2014 13:38 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Charles Orr wrote: HiHi Charles There is no reason why it shouldn't, just be aware that there will be changes to the geometry, which will mean you will need to tidy the track work up a bit. Phil |
||
posted: 30 Nov 2014 13:45 from: Charles Orr
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Phil. Next question is how to I change the gauge of a complete track-plan. Is there an easy way or does it have to be done template by template? Regards Charles |
||
posted: 30 Nov 2014 14:36 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Charles Orr wrote: Next question is how to I change the gauge of a complete track-plan.Hi Charles, Which track plan are you referring to? John's plan has some very sharp radii and I wouldn't normally recommend 00-SF for that. 00-BF would be a better choice. To convert a track plan, or part of it, to a different gauge/scale: Select the required gauge in the list. Click the convert group button: 2_300932_330000000.png If the conversion involves a change to the scale:gauge ratio (which it usually does) you will notice some small gaps or overlaps between the templates, which will need tidying up for a good result. But it makes a starting point and a lot quicker than starting again from scratch. regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 30 Nov 2014 14:53 from: Charles Orr
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Martin. I was referring to the Minories track plan above. I'll have a go and see what happens. Regards Charles |
||
posted: 30 Nov 2014 22:04 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Charles Orr wrote: It might not be at all easy as there are lots of partial templates, plus it is really designed for a "scale" flangeways etc. Might be a lot easy to convert all your stock in fact... [Dons hard hat and runs for the bunker...] Best wishes, Howard |
||
Last edited on 30 Nov 2014 22:05 by JFS |
|||
posted: 1 Dec 2014 12:08 from: Charles Orr
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Howard, I think I'll just use it as a guide. Best regards Charles |
||
posted: 1 Dec 2014 15:17 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I started to redraw the plan so I can have the crossover on the curve. Its very rough at the moment and I may have to start the small formation after the crossover with another curved turnout. If possible a 4' platform length would be nice and using a 2'6 radius curve I only have 18" to play with, but part of the return curve is within the platform roads. In a reply on RMweb martin suggested a C10 crossover, I was hoping for something shorter to match in with the small turnouts and tight radius. Perhaps using a straight turnout within the curve may be better. Anyway here is a very rough start, which needs tidying up | ||
Attachment: attach_2008_2584_00_gauge_Minories__2.box 242 | |||
Last edited on 1 Dec 2014 15:17 by Hayfield |
|||
posted: 1 Dec 2014 15:40 from: Charles Orr
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi John, I shall follow this with interest. Are you intending to use slips in this version? Best regards Charles |
||
posted: 1 Dec 2014 16:54 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hayfield wrote: I started to redraw the plan so I can have the crossover on the curve. Its very rough at the moment and I may have to start the small formation after the crossover with another curved turnout. If possible a 4' platform length would be nice and using a 2'6 radius curve I only have 18" to play with, but part of the return curve is within the platform roads. In a reply on RMweb martin suggested a C10 crossover, I was hoping for something shorter to match in with the small turnouts and tight radius.Hi John, Everything depends on your acceptable minimum radius? Toy trains traditionally go down to 15" radius but unless you will be running only old toy trains I don't think you can sensibly go that sharp. Perhaps a suitable absolute minimum would be 450mm / 18" radius? To get the easiest possible radius in the shortest turnout you need to select the non-prototype model switches in the list, and a generic type V-crossing. 2_011146_480000000.png Using the shortest 1:24 model switch and generic 1:6 V-crossing you can get this crossover: 2_011147_280000000.png 750mm radius in the outer double-track and 700mm in the inner double track. Generic V-crossings. The turnout radius in the outer turnout is just over the 18" limit at 464mm / 18.3". This seems to be about as tight as you can sensibly go with kit-built models, and even then is likely to mean carving lumps out of them for loco bogies to swing, carving behind splashers for extra side-play on wheels, wires across the buffers to prevent locking, etc. Against that the big advantage of putting the crossover on a curve is that there is no reverse curve to cause problems. regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 1 Dec 2014 17:09 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Charles Orr wrote: Hi John,Charles I am sorry but its a big no to the slips. As its a retro layout I am building it in code 100 rail, I going to use it for my small collection of old locos and carriages. Double slips are a bit of a pain at the best of times, as the blades are too stiff in code 75 if built as flexible type, so they have to be built as hinged. I think I have read somewhere with smaller sized crossings were switched diamonds rather than double slips. I have some old American ready made code 100 turnout rail parts, which will be ideal for saving time. Just need to firm up a few areas before the soldering iron comes out |
||
posted: 1 Dec 2014 17:29 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Thanks, most of the locos are on old RTR chassis, though some do have Romford wheels. Most may even have flangeless centre drivers (I also have a selection of Romford flangeless drivers. I think at worst I could possibly drop in a straight turnout on the outer curve and just adjust the plain track to suite. I think I will build the station throat first then see what happens after. I will be left with the outer triangle of space in the corner, I guess I could squeeze in an extra short siding or two, just to make use of the space |
||
posted: 1 Dec 2014 17:41 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hayfield wrote:As its a retro layout I am building it in code 100 railHi John, For retro handbuilt track you should be using code 95 bullhead. I remember helping on a club layout of Bewdley in EM in the early 1970s which used such rail. I don't know where you would get it nowadays. It was listed by the old suppliers -- W&H, ERG, Bonds, Hamblings, etc. Martin. |
||
posted: 1 Dec 2014 18:29 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: I remember helping on a club layout of Bewdley in EM in the early 1970s which used such rail.Martin, It was the rail of choice for S scale modellers in the UK since it was only slightly overscale and I think the S Scale Model Railway Society got hold of the remaining stocks of the rail some years ago. When that ran out, we got new rail specially drawn for us and plastic chairs designed to match. The new rail is Code 87 but someone looking for it would need to be a member of the SSMRS. Jim. |
||
posted: 1 Dec 2014 18:36 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Thanks, most of the locos are on old RTR chassis, though some do have Romford wheels. Most may even have flangeless centre drivers (I also have a selection of Romford flangeless drivers. I think at worst I could possibly drop in a straight turnout on the outer curve and just adjust the plain track to suite. I think I will build the station throat first then see what happens after. I will be left with the outer triangle of space in the corner, I guess I could squeeze in an extra short siding or two, just to make use of the space |
||
posted: 2 Dec 2014 23:04 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Hayfield wrote:As its a retro layout I am building it in code 100 railHi John, Martin Thanks for that I had no idea that the flatbottom rail in the Peco spiked track was smaller than code100 982_021734_050000000.jpg I was given several of these parts which are in code 100 and will match up with the flexi track I want to use. I wont be using them as they are but the machined stock and switch rails will save me some time. I do have quite a few examples of different types of track building parts, I have noticed that the Peco spiked track kits is a slightly smaller rail and I do have some additional spare lengths of FB & BH rail. I also have quite a few different style of track parts from both Peco spiked and wire bull head chairs. Also parts from GEM, Kings Cross, W&H and Bonds. and some ABC plain track, may use some of these later I think initially I will use copperclad sleepers on the turnouts and Peco code 100 flexi track. I am finishing off the code 75 units in EM then I will have a go building a code 100 turnout |
||
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. |