Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 22 May 2017 15:27 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello all, This is my current plan for my 4-sf layout in the loft. Being just less than 15ft square I decided against sharp curves and shortish straights and went for a long approx 6ft radius curve to make it look a little more realistic. The line going to the top left of the plan leads to a branch fiddleyard and the whole plan is based loosely off Pontrillas but I will set it more on a lms/lner line maybe. I have added in some extra sidings and such at the top for some added interest that I might play around with a little later. As for the station itself It has 2 mainline platforms and a bay with loop for the branch line and also for the goods trains to shunt around on to keep the main clear. The issues I have: 1. I have made a single slip on the mainline, I followed the video tutorial and I think I have done it right? 2. Because I am running out of space for the goods yard behind the station and cannot move the whole thing up I really need to add in a 3 way tandem turnout (So I can remove a point and save a little space). Now I tried to follow all the old instructions but when I added the 3rd set with no timbers it looked horribly wrong. So if anyone out there has experience with them that could help me get that finished that would be a big help as it's the only thing I am stuck on. Other than that I just need to shove some timbers and wait for C&L to re-open. |
||
| Attachment: attach_2441_3030_theeloftplan.box 391 | |||
|
posted: 22 May 2017 15:28 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
and the background shapes file | ||
| Attachment: attach_2442_3030_high_road_17_03_02_1841_56.bgs 350 | |||
|
posted: 24 May 2017 08:13 from: Stephen Freeman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi, Slip looks OK to me, I'll have a look at the 3 way this am |
||
|
posted: 24 May 2017 08:43 from: Stephen Freeman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi, I've had a go at the 3 way, just needs the timbering sorting out now. Borg-Rail wrote: Hi, |
||
| Attachment: attach_2443_3030_high_road_2017_05_24_0840_57.box 334 | |||
|
posted: 24 May 2017 11:05 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Michael, Welcome to Templot Club.  I noticed there are several places where you have used a regular type of V-crossing: 2_240523_120000000.png  where it would achieve a better "flow" to use curviform V-crossings instead. Where you have contraflexure with a regular V-crossing, the vee splice rail also has contraflexure. Sometimes this is what you want (in a curved crossover for example). But in many cases where the intention is for the tracks to diverge, it is better to change to a curviform V-crossing. Otherwise you will have a short section of reverse curve in the diverging road. Often this doesn't show very obviously on the screen, but it will do when looking along the finished tracks. To see what I mean, here I have greatly exaggerated the effect: 2_240554_100000000.png  2_240554_300000000.png  I see this problem very often in uploaded track plans. I have tried to explain it so many times over the years that I'm not sure I have the strength to carry on. Templot can't automatically make this change when the curving radius goes negative because there are many cases where it would not be wanted -- in curved crossovers for example. More about types of V-crossings at: http://templot.com/martweb/gs_realtrack.htm Also in the upper two of your turnouts above, you have used "A" switches where there is plenty of room for longer "B" switches. "A" switches aren't normally used in running lines because of the severe switch deflection. Admittedly, the effect is mitigated where there is contraflexure. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 24 May 2017 14:51 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I struggled to come up with an acceptable tandem incorporating a 1 : 5 crossing for the two outer roads, but retained the resulting tandem on the attached boxfile, for what it's worth. With a bit of tweaking of switch positions I managed to move the 1 : 5 crossing to a position where neither of its wing rails got truncated. On the attached boxfile I took the liberty of making a significant modification to your proposed layout with a view to improving its operational flexibility. The modification consists of adding a shunting neck running parallel to the branch. My rationale for this is that your original layout appeared to require occupation of the branch for any shunting of the yard. Depending upon how the layout is signalled (particularly as regards the position of the Branch Home), any shunting operations may have to be suspended prior to acceptance of a train from the next block post on the branch. With the neck added, shunting can proceed without conflict with any movements over the branch, including release of a branch train engine following its arrival in the bay. In this arrangement I didn't find it neceesary to make use of any tandems. Apologies for the liberty-taking with your design! |
||
| Attachment: attach_2444_3030_high_road_2017_05_24_1403_37_(Mod).box 324 | |||
|
posted: 24 May 2017 14:56 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin , have you written anywhere about the best design for a curved crossover, Are both turnouts curved , or is only one. What type of V crossing is best suited ( hopefully you'll find the will to go on  )Dave |
||
|
posted: 24 May 2017 15:14 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
madscientist wrote: Martin , have you written anywhere about the best design for a curved crossover, Are both turnouts curved , or is only one. What type of V crossing is best suitedHi Dave, No problem about the will. It's the strength that's lacking. The way to make a crossover is to start with the first turnout, curved or straight, and then click tools > make ordinary crossover. What else do you need to know? What beginners sometimes struggle to grasp is that in a double-track crossover, curved or straight, both turnouts are always of the SAME hand. This is the opposite of what happens when trying to fudge a curved crossover using ready-made curved turnouts such as Peco. Remember to set the TS adjacent track centres beforehand, if necessary. The V-crossings should be regular for preference, or generic. Curviform V-crossings create an instant reverse curve in the middle of the crossover road - if that's what you want you will have to create the crossover manually. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 24 May 2017 16:33 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks very much everyone. I did not know anything about the curviform crossing so thanks for pointing that out. (I really should read more tutorials) Borg & John, Thanks very much for those template files. I was really struggling to make the goods yard "work" but now I am one step closer to getting it started now |
||
|
posted: 27 May 2017 08:10 from: madscientist click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Dave |
||
|
posted: 11 Jun 2017 11:41 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Right, I have made a few changes based off some suggestions to make the goods yard sidings longer and slightly operationally better. Iv'e printed it out and layed it out in the loft and it just about fits, but the dimensions in templot say it'll fit perfectly but I wasn't taking too much care in laying out the many peices of paper! Just got to do some timber nudging now. I seem to have forgotten where the option is to add where the ballast shoulder should be? Is there an easy way to apply it to all the track? Cheers |
||
| Attachment: attach_2448_3030_theeloftplan4.box 292 | |||
|
posted: posted: 11 Jun 2017 12:35 from: Stephen Freeman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Michael Henfrey wrote: Right, I have made a few changes based off some suggestions to make the goods yard sidings longer and slightly operationally better. Iv'e printed it out and layed it out in the loft and it just about fits, but the dimensions in templot say it'll fit perfectly but I wasn't taking too much care in laying out the many peices of paper! Just got to do some timber nudging now.Comes under geometry - you have to group all the templates first. |
||
| Attachment: attach_2449_3030_high_road_2017_06_11_1233_16.box 307 | |||
|
11 Jun 2017 12:35 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Michael Henfrey wrote: I seem to have forgotten where the option is to add where the ballast shoulder should be?Hi Michael, Menu items: 1. geometry > trackbed edges > trackbed intent > ballast edge + cess 2. geometry > trackbed edges > add trackbed edge TS / MS That sets the control template. Is there an easy way to apply it to all the track?geometry > trackbed edges > modify group to match More info: geometry > trackbed edges > ? trackbed - help regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 11 Jun 2017 12:41 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks |
||
|
posted: 12 Jun 2017 17:24 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
all the timbers have been nudged I think. I hope I have done them right as I didn't touch any supporting the vee's or checkrails or where the tiebar needs to go. I have taken to cutting some sleepers shorter rather than adding in lots of long ones. Track edges have also been done Next step is to try and align the templates and glue them down onto smaller cork sections so I can make them up a section at a time in a more comfy location |
||
| Attachment: attach_2450_3030_theeloftplan5.box 293 | |||
|
posted: 23 Jul 2017 11:24 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi all, Due to the space in my loft my goods yard was still getting shorter so I had a little idea.. I have removed it from the back of the station of which I think a village scene would look really nice there and tried moving it to the front which gives me an extra ft or so of length. It also means I don't have to lean over so much to work on the goods yard! Now the downsides is that anything using the branch has to use the main to run around, not so much of an issue maybe as I want to keep it quite countryside based. The other downside is that the goods yard would use the lay-by as a headshunt, so I am wondering if I could get away with using that as a headshunt but also as a lay-by for slow goods trains on occasion? 3446_230619_290000000.png  |
||
|
posted: 23 Jul 2017 14:16 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
An alternative suggestion, adapted from an earlier version of your plan: 2129_230908_410000000.png  Rather than having a facing movement from lie-by into sidings, project forward from lie-by into shunting neck and lay out the sidings as a kickback from the neck. This way, shunting can proceed independently of the recessing of a train in the lie-by.So far as I can see, branch train engines can be released from a train standing in the bay and run round (or go on shed) without having to go onto the main lines at all. Have I missed something? |
||
|
posted: 23 Jul 2017 16:28 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks John, Ive attached some pictures so you can get an idea of the space I have. Unfortunately I don't think I would have that much space at the front there when points are included etc. The branch line bit I was more on about goods incoming and outgoing from the branch/mainline as they would need to cross the main to get to it. I'm starting to wonder if a complete re-think is needed and that it should be all dumbed down alot and have less going on.. Then again it's taken me ages to get this far and I'm not sure I have the willpower to make another track plan now 3446_231127_390000000.jpg  3446_231128_020000000.jpg  3446_231128_410000000.jpg  |
||
| Attachment: attach_2474_3030_IMG_20170723_161222.jpg 257 | |||
|
posted: 23 Jul 2017 18:52 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Think you're OK with using the layby to shunt the yard. A train can arrive in the layby, loco run around it, and shunt away. | ||
|
posted: 23 Jul 2017 22:39 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Nigel Brown wrote: Think you're OK with using the layby to shunt the yard. A train can arrive in the layby, loco run around it, and shunt away.Thanks, I have been playing around in templot a little and wondered if I could do something a little different and still retain some of the good features and I wondered about having a goods siding mich like that like Eastwood http://www.shmrc.org.uk/club-layouts/eastwood/ Anyway not messed about too much with it, added in the goods loop siding and a spur for the branch line with an interesting platform arrangement, but not figured out how to add in a run around for the branch yet as it cannot go any higher. Thoughts? |
||
| Attachment: attach_2475_3030_otheridea.box 265 | |||
|
posted: 25 Jul 2017 16:49 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Ok, I have had a little break from it and tried changing a few things around. In this version I have got rid of the branch run around and instead push pulls/dmu's can go straight into the bay, anything needing to run around can join the mainline and run around there before moving to the bay. I have tried moving the goods yard to the front (at the bottom) along with the cattle docks as that's the only place I could see to put them? and have turned the inside loop into mostly a goods yard headshunt but could also be used by slow moving goods trains to move out of the way? The outside loop has an extension on the end for the same reason. I do loose a small industry with this plan though? i.e timber yard/dairy/mill etc. At the top left and left hand side behind the railway will be the country village/town that crosses over the branch line with a level crossing. and then a small country road will lead down past the station for the entrance to that. 3446_251148_520000000.png  |
||
| Attachment: attach_2476_3030_loftwithsinglebay.box 219 | |||
|
posted: 25 Jul 2017 17:23 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Looking fine to me. Does the branch actually go anywhere or is it a dummy? | ||
|
posted: 25 Jul 2017 18:08 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Nigel Brown wrote: Looking fine to me. Does the branch actually go anywhere or is it a dummy?It goes up to a fiddleyard above the mainline fiddleyard. That's why I cannot move it any further around because of the incline. |
||
|
posted: 12 Nov 2017 12:12 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I have had a major change of heart and have decided to go for a more rural branch line serving a village or something whilst trying to incorporate a small industry. The reason for putting the industry at the bottom is that I have extra space infront (12ft) where the main branch line will enter a tunnel at 9ft ish to the fiddleyard. What do you all think? I am really aiming for rural countryside but I want enough operational interest whilst having some single track line running through the countryside. | ||
| Attachment: attach_2570_3030_loft_branch_line_double_platform.box 218 | |||
|
posted: 14 Nov 2017 12:09 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Have been having similar thoughts myself about "through the countryside" track. My existing boards along one wall need an additional board on the end taking the track round to the storage sidings on the adjacent wall. In the end I've decided not to scenic it. One major reason was that I couldn't envisage something which would satisfy me. With my current baseboard arrangements the track sits directly on the baseboard, which means that scenery would be either at the same level or above, whereas I was hoping for something like a train running on an embankment, which is not easy to incorporate. I'd suggest if you want that long scenic bit you need to be sure about what it will look like and that it's what you want. I'd plan it down to the last detail; there's a lot of work in making scenic expanses looking convincing. Personally I'd have stuck with something along the lines of your previous plan. You could always single it if you wanted to. Nigel |
||
|
posted: 14 Nov 2017 12:45 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Nigel, I had the same issues with my baseboards so I have dropped about half of it so that I can have some scenics going up and down. Unfortunately I've changed my fiddleyard again for a single line so it's abit late for going double. I have some good ideas for the branch line though so I just need to perfect the plan a little. I like the idea of the passing station though as it allows me to run a little more coaching stock |
||
| Last edited on 14 Nov 2017 12:46 by Michael Henfrey |
|||
|
posted: 28 Nov 2017 17:56 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks to Martin for helping me sort out my station area which now looks perfect for what I want.. I am now looking to the bottom half of the layout, Mostly the industry area.. I am torn between keeping it basic like a rural single track line would be and something slightly more complex and interesting to shunt.. I have had a stab at the more complex idea (not perfectly setup or anything as I just wanted to see what it looks like) Maybe I keep trying to add too much! lol Edit: After trying it I found out I will have to make the stretch from the main running line to the first point at the sidings/industry area alot longer! |
||
| Attachment: attach_2585_3030_Thebranchlayoutbottomindustry.box 248 | |||
| Last edited on 28 Nov 2017 19:28 by Michael Henfrey |
|||
|
posted: 18 Aug 2019 11:10 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi all, So it has been a long time since I updated this post so I thought I'd share some progress I have made, If you can call it that! I have cut every single sleeper out from sheets of ply and threaded every chair on. The only RTR is the fiddleyard track and points, Everything else is 4-SF/00-SF. 3446_180634_300000000.jpg  3446_180634_300000001.jpg  3446_180634_310000002.jpg  |
||
| Last edited on 18 Aug 2019 11:39 by Michael Henfrey |
|||
|
posted: 18 Aug 2019 11:49 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Michael, Thanks for the update. Looking very good. You have made good progress there if you are building 4-SF plain track by hand, fully chaired. p.s. I have rotated your pictures for you. cheers, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 18 Aug 2019 14:08 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Hi Michael,Thanks Martin. It's certainly a slow process but totally worth it. I have ran my Jinty over one point that is wired up and it runs through the pointwork like butter Martin, I have altered the track plan ever so slightly to extend my headshunt by an extra wagon length at the station area. However this has messed up the headshunt track which no longer sit's alongside the main line. I have tried to fix it but it always ends up in a right state, Any chance you could have a quick look please? Many Thanks |
||
| Attachment: attach_2883_3030_Thebranchlayoutbottomindustry2.box 78 | |||
|
posted: 18 Aug 2019 15:21 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Michael, Here you go: 2_181018_250000000.png  Good to see that you are using the correct 15ft-2in centres from the running line. Box file below. cheers, Martin. |
||
| Attachment: attach_2884_3030_michael_headshunt.box 83 | |||
|
posted: 18 Aug 2019 15:45 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks very much |
||
|
posted: 19 Aug 2019 16:03 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Out of interest, Would a track layout like this even have a trap/catch point exiting the goods yard? Or would the point that is in the goods yard that accesses the main be controlled in some way instead? | ||
|
posted: 22 Aug 2019 14:17 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Michael Henfrey wrote: Out of interest, Would a track layout like this even have a trap/catch point exiting the goods yard? Or would the point that is in the goods yard that accesses the main be controlled in some way instead? Hi Micheal. I would say not as a trap/catch point would be rendered surplus by the yard exit point 3, which traps any shunting movements within the yard clear of the running lines. 3 would be interlocked with the crossover 5 and 8 in the signal box lever frame. 3 could only be set for yard exit when 5 and 8 were not set for the crossover road. Regards Tony. |
||
|
posted: 23 Aug 2019 09:59 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
If the layout represents a station with passing loop on a single line then the normal lie of the points at each end of the loop (6 and 9) will be to the platform the arriving train will use (i.e. the platform on the nearside). This is to ensure that in the event that a train overruns the home signal in rear of the loop points it will continue along the correct route. I think I would treat 3 and 8 Points as a crossover, which ensures that the road is correctly set for any movement into or out of the sidings, regardless of the lie of loop points 6. Should vehicles be standing on 6 points for any reason, it wouldn't be possible to reverse them for a movement in/out of the sidings if 6 and 8 points are linked to form a crossover, although such a movement is otherwise perfectly legitimate. In terms of interlocking, the home signal controlling admission to the loop over 6 points locks 3 and 8 points normal when cleared. Conversely, reversal of 3 and 8 as a pair locks that home signal so as to prevent a conflict between an approaching train and a movement into/out of the sidings. Whichever way you go about it, there's no need for the trap points 2, which, as Tony says, are rendered surplus by points 3. |
||
|
posted: 24 Aug 2019 08:07 from: Michael Henfrey
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brilliant, Thanks guys Those detailed explanations will help me went I plan out the point rodding too. Much appreciated. Cheers |
||
| 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. |