|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 3 Mar 2008 14:24 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Good morning all I've created a plan for Wolverhampton steel terminal and Chillington wharf. Time frame 1985-1990. So Pre EWS and pre big shed. The rails into Chillington wharf were still used but the wharf interchange with the canal long ceased. Also the main loop in the plan represents the mainline between Wolverhampton and Birmingham. I've rolled the rails and shoved some timbers but I'm hoping that a few of you guys could cast an eye over the plan to see if my timber shoving looks ok/respectable/typical? For those of you who have seen my plans before you may be shocked to see I've even managed to get around to naming the labels, must be serious about this one! There is one REA point inside the loop, which I've put there on purpose as its likely that it would never have been rebuilt using FB rail like some of the other points. I'm going to take a step into the unknown here too, with combining track codes. There are several places where BH rail survives at the terminal, so making it all FB track would be wrong, so I'm going to try and merge code 82 and 75 rails hopefully seemlessly. Thanks for looking Dave |
||
Attachment: attach_240_351_wolverhampton_steel__08_03_03_0916_03.box 275 | |||
posted: 3 Mar 2008 14:26 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I forgot to add also the section at the bottom will be a traverser fiddle yard and the wing rails either side will be additional storage that can join up to a traverser road, as the the traverser will only be 3 or 4 roads wide due to space. Dave |
||
posted: 4 Mar 2008 16:10 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Anyone had a chance to check my plan re: timbering? Dave |
||
posted: 5 Mar 2008 03:30 from: BeamEnds click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
davelong wrote: Anyone had a chance to check my plan re: timbering? ok - here's my attempt - probably being Mr. Picky sometimes....... 66 ST Sidings toe to slip - gap a bit big? 68 poss strteched a bit? maybe extra timber 32 ST siding 5 entery - naughty shortening of sleepers? double track "above" 39 BOC Point - spacing gone a bit awry? curve to strait transition on inner double to right of under bridge point - spacing (and alignment) gone wrong? 7 main line short curve spacing? rh end of traverser 9 spacing? Cheers Richard |
||
posted: 5 Mar 2008 03:59 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Richard Thank you for your comments, the more nit picking the better. All understood, a few silly errors left in on my part. But not sure what you mean re: the 68 poss stretch? Kind regards Dave |
||
posted: 5 Mar 2008 04:34 from: BeamEnds click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
davelong wrote: Hi RichardHi Dave, Unfortunately I'm back in linux land now, but I think I meant that the sleepers/timbers are streteched a bit too far apart, possibly. Maybe. [Edit] Just read my own post! I rather thought the spacing of the sleepers was a bit much - perhaps you could sneak an extra one in there and shuffle the others along a bit. [/edit] Cheers Richard |
||
Last edited on 5 Mar 2008 04:38 by BeamEnds |
|||
posted: 6 Mar 2008 15:43 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Dave, Unfortunately there are no hard and fast rules about timbering, you can always find a prototype which contradicts everything you say. I wrote some brief notes about it at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/templot/message/8313 Looking at your plan I think this crossover would be more likely than not to have a few long timbers across all three tracks. That would certainly be the case in GW territory (but in LNER territory perhaps not): wolves1.png Looking at the plan as a whole, you don't seem to have any connection to the the inner double-track? Also the straight section looks a bit train-setty. Generally you can make the layout look larger by having the trains snake through reverse transition curves like this. It also helps to disguise the severity of the end curves. (Although I believe this is becoming known as the "Templot look" -- never knowingly any straight track! ): wolves2.png regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 6 Mar 2008 17:27 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin Thanks for having a look. I was in two minds about having the mainline that straight, so reverse transition curves are the right way of going about this are they? Regards the no connection to the inner loop, The steel terminal has only one way in and one way out. There is a mainline crossover in reality but even that is a long way back from the terminal. Also as its the terminal I'm mostly interested in modelling I wasn't too concerned about the mainline as that will be just a show piece for stock and OHLE. In this plan also the traverser would give me access for changing of rolling stock on each mainline loop. The one thing I'm annoyed with is trying to fit in a decent fiddle yard. This plan uses the traverser and I've drawn up another version which removes the mentioned crossover from the mainline and uses a cassette system, but i'm not keen on having 7-9' long cassettes! Any ideas?? Dave |
||
posted: 7 Mar 2008 02:10 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
davelong wrote:
Hi Dave I have been toying with a roundy roundy which will utilize through roads to allow continuous running but with a short spur at each end to allow a series of cassttes to be attached to allow the rains to enter and leave the main running lines. I would also split up the cassettes into two or more parts 1 short one for the loco and several for the train it self depending on length, bulldog clips are usefull for joining the sections together. I have attached a screen shot of what I am trying to get at as to the track layout but it needs refining as regards turnouts etc to suit your needs. Cheers Phil |
||
Attachment: attach_244_351_Wolves_steel_terminal.PNG 336 | |||
posted: 7 Mar 2008 04:03 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Phil Thanks for the comments, I quite like your idea of have several parts to each cassette road, sounds very tempting after all its called a fiddle yard for a reason, fiddling around with parts of the trains to get want you want/need around the scenic sections. I'll ook into it further. The points coming off the tight curves may cause a problem on the inner loop as they'd need to be silly CF18 to be anywhere near a suitable radius. The outside of the outer loop wouldn't be a problem. As I touched upon earlier I have a version of the plan where the exit road from the steel terminal does not join the mainline curves, instead would feed along side the mainline in to the fiddle yard, the idea being that I could get in a slightly longer seperate fiddle yard road for it and be able to have that fiddle yard road a little lower than the mainline to help with the gradient (for info stands about 1:80, possibly with lifting the mainline slightly as high as 1:100). Thanks you may have restored my hope in using cassettes. Dave |
||
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. |