Track Planning & Layout Ideas - New Builds Started

[Terry Bendall]

I've been trying to rack my brain how a push-pull engine in 'sandwich formation' would top up on water and coal.

I don't have personal experience to go by but the LBSC used a lot of push pull formations, as did the Southern and other companies. The control linkage between the driving cab(s) and the loco would have made regular separation for coaling and water difficult. Water would not be a problem - just pull up alongside the water crane but I expect coaling would be old fashioned manual labour - pull up alongside the coaling stage or even a wagon and shovel it in, or perhaps use a bucket of some sort. Most locos will need to take on water far more frequently than coal.

Terry Bendall

[dal-t]

Just an observation, but I don't think the illustration you've shown is a real 'sandwich', as despite what the original caption suggests (this might merit further discussion on another forum) I believe the furthest vehicle to be a simple brake rather than a driving trailer - so the only driving linkage would be to the nearest set, in which case uncoupling from the additional 'strengtheners' would be straightforward. FYI 6653 sitting there in the middle would carry, fully loaded, over 1200 gallons of water and 21/2 tons of coal, enough for a fair few trips before replenishment.

[Noel]

According to the late David Jenkinson, the photo of the LMS auto train isn't what it appears to be. There is an auto train, loco propelling, but the trailing coaches [at the far end in the picture] are not auto fitted, being ordinary stock used for strengthening, or just being moved from A to B. The GWR also did such things with all sorts of trailing stock [sausage vans, milk tanks, parcel vans, corridor coaches...] The GW used sandwich auto trains because their mechanical control system could only effectively be used for two coaches coupled, so two in front and two behind was the most it could cope with. The other three of the big four used air pressure or vacuum control systems, which did not have the same constraints, so could, and did, work auto with three or four coaches at the same end of the loco.

Pre-group I don't know much about, although I have a photo of a SECR 'P' class with one coach [apparently both auto trailers] at each end, but I don't know what the control system was. The Barry had no through regulator control, just a brake setter in the trailer driving cab and an electric bell to signal to the fireman on the loco, while the Taff Vale used wire cables above the roof, so it all depends what control system your auto trains use...

Noel

[steves17]

Ah I see about the mislabeled image! Generally speaking i'm leaning towards the LMS when not directly following Sodor lore, so if I don't need to bother with sandwiching then that is fine but yes i've also seen a few southern engines pulling non passenger rolling stock on the other end of auto fitted stock, so will have a bit of fun with that Does anyone have any LMS books featuring motor trains that they would recommend? Thinking about it 3 coaches in the motor-train unit will probably be sufficient, as the trains operating at rush hour in the morning and evening are managed by direct trains from Tidmouth Terminus and these can be decently longer.
Dropping a coach has allowed me to pull in the main station building in a bit to the east, as unlike in Knuckles's plan my primary station buildings are wider and placed to the west of the bay where there is room for the foundations to spread out northward.
Taking on the above points i've placed a suspended coaling stage just north of the northern headshunt ( represented by the broken truck thats been placed on a low loader ).
I did consider placing the water tower at the eastern end of the platform, something like this,

but as its not needed by the engines on the mainline i've placed it at the other end of the bay near the passenger gantry/footbridge ( the steps on the southern platform will face east when its built ).

The reason for placing the ( bulbous ) water tower here is because it would be in the way of numerous illustrations showing the mostly bare eastern section of the platform and because there is a bit of a hill along the branch line when it starts pulling away from the coastline I figure pulling chimney first is better than pushing bunker first Even if a tender engine is on branch duty they have plenty of reserve and need to run to the main yard for turning around regardless, so can top up there if necessary.

This is the small yard in its current state.

Where the 812 Caledonian is placed represents the headshunt and the news stand in front of it is representing a buffer. I trust for just an engine there is no danger of it running backwards, so no need for a catch point and as Noel has mentioned the double slip protects the mainline. The rest of the yard is all attached to the throat in the above loop. The shed building might change a bit when I come to fully flesh it out, but that will still be the basic track arrangement.

Does that all look fine?

[Knuckles]

Looks good to me, looks like my plans were worth posting as a fictional 'truth' almost. Even if I don't get to build them it's nice to know others appreciate them. The engine shed would be in the West yard not where you have it on the extreme East but I understand the compromise.

Like I said in the pic itself, I tested various movements in Trainplayer for feasability. Plans created with Anyrail using the Exactoscale range and as the program title suggests, Trainppayer allowes you to play on them. I just use it as manoever, shunt and clearence tests.

[steves17]

I think if I made the north platform wider I could include the main station building like in your plan but because you also need access to the other side of the bay platform it would have to be really wide, which in turn would extend the diagonal run of track from the west bound line and I only have so much length to play with before I hit a wall....Basically i've semi sacrificed the more common imagery by using examples like in 'Bertie's Chase',

but the open platform area to the east can still be there.

Not a brilliant match but if you squint in the right direction its vaguely similar to Bewdley

I can include a narrow shelter made of bricks to half match the brick building attached the the main station building cum booking office and so when you chuck in a few open benches, lamps and the station sign it plugs the gap a little

Incidentally the 'made up' fictional shed to the east is a goods shed, not an engine shed. As there are two births in that main yard building thats enough room Edward in the one and in the other two spaces for the original 0-6-0 tank engines, or my later push-pull fitted replacements ( IoS is vague but I don't think they are the same lot considering they were built in or around 1869 ).

As for the other two 0-6-0 tank engines my notion is that there is a small MPD down in Brendam, which would of been moved originally from Suddery.

The placement of the footbridge is irking me a little, as it has to be on the far extreme of the platforms to be west of the booking Office and shelter on the opposite platform, so thats why I moved the latter to the east. There are some real examples of the footbridge at the far extreme of a long platform though so I might yet keep it, as bar people jumping platforms it is otherwise in a logical place, as people have to exit via the car park area or I imagine a foot path on the southern platform that goes out towards the town in the south west. This is sort of what I mean, but i'm still flicking though books to find more suitable examples.


Bar those niggles I think it works otherwise

[Knuckles]

Nah, Hornby sold an engine shed almost exactly the same. Plus other companies have, also look in book 2 and my plan and there is a turntable and refulijg facilities.

[steves17]

What? I'm scarcely talking about the main yard section in the west. PM me if you like but wires are getting crossed here.

*Edit just be clear I know the resin model you mean, as I very nearly brought it some time back, but i'm not focusing on the main yard section to the west here. The loosely placed dark wooden shed in my pics above is simply a loading shed. I suppose you can loosely argue i've heavily modified and flipped around the one seen in 'Trouble in the Shed'.

[billbedford]

I've been trying to rack my brain how a push-pull engine in 'sandwich formation' would top up on water and coal.

They would normally be loaded with enough coal for the day's diagram. As for water, most reasonably large station had a water crane where the locos could top up their tanks.

[Guy Rixon]

I did consider placing the water tower at the eastern end of the platform...

It would need to be far enough from the platform end that an engine could take water without passing the starter signal.

[Knuckles]

What? I'm scarcely talking about the main yard section in the west. PM me if you like but wires are getting crossed here.

*Edit just be clear I know the resin model you mean, as I very nearly brought it some time back, but i'm not focusing on the main yard section to the west here. The loosely placed dark wooden shed in my pics above is simply a loading shed. I suppose you can loosely argue i've heavily modified and flipped around the one seen in 'Trouble in the Shed'.

Ok. I'll get me coat.

[steves17]

It would need to be far enough from the platform end that an engine could take water without passing the starter signal.[/quote]

Like this you mean

I'll keep the push-pull engines facing west when they enter the bay and the water tower will be plumed there, close to the platform edge like in the above. If I did want to move it between the lines of the two head shunts though, so it could fill up an engine on either side, do I have to widen the gap a little for clearance purposes? * The tower would be a skinny one like in the photos, not like the one sitting on top of my loose plan.


I think i'm good with the overall plan now, so once I refine a few remaining dimensions plus the road i'll work out the baseboard sections. Incidentally if the motor train comes into the bay there is no technical reason it can't come right up to the end of the platform right? As the crossover is not needed in this case.

( ignore the fact that its a GWR engine )

Thanks Bill. I confess I was unsure how much coal a smallish engine would use but if it can do a few modest trips a day without the need to top up the bunker i'll get rid of the emergency staith for hand shovelling.

Cheers everyone.

Steve

[Knuckles]

Will be interested to see your planned updates, Steve.
On my layout plan that is in this thread, the main one for Knapford Junction I have just tweaked it on Anyrail.

I've finally sorted the top left issue out we discussed regarding a certain scene/event and so I 'created' a 3 way tandem turnout using a left and right hand super imposed upon each other. That shouldn't be the end of the world to build but it is a new challenge, as will be the 3 double slips needed, unless I change one to a single.

See what you think.

You can compare changes by looking at previous page or two.

I've also added a station building on top with roads to the top left siding as suggested by someone else here depicting a mini industry or something. The fence that crosses this road represents a gate.

[Knuckles]

Hello fellow modellers. As I'm getting closer and closer to actually starting this I have a lot to consider and get right and a million opportunities to make a pigs ear out of things.

So far the layout is made using Exactoscale turnouts from the Anyrail program I use. I know transition curves are better but I don't think I can fit them in and the 4FT radius if I use it Is double what I used before so I'm thinking things might still run ok. I hope so anyway. Not so much bothered about it looking more gentle as long as things don't fall off. The plan I can't really compress any more, it will look a different location if curved and I can't yet do Templot. 2nd tutorial is too much for me. Been over it about 3 times and still haven't managed to get it right. I even set the parameters the same and downloaded the same to follow it but it still did stuff differently. Also the prospect of doing the WHOLE layout in Templot and getting it all to align seems an impossible task so current thinking is to just go with what I have been refining for literally 3 or 4 years and hope for the best.

The most complex formation I built to date is a B7LH into a single slip and it works fine. This plan is nearly all Exactoscale geometry and the most complex bits are a couple of double slips. As I built a single slip I believe I will manage a double, supplemented by a few double whiskies. There is an equal 3 way turnout needed also. If an equal 3 way is actually possible that is...I'm unsure.

Please have a look at the picture and text and see what you think.

[Knuckles]

Just a mini thread bump.

If anyone knows good answers could someone please answer my above post queeries? Getting closer to starting it and really need to end these issue and worries so I can move on. I'm just struggeling with certain knowledge lacks. I am thinking to just risk it but that sounds daft.

[Mike Garwood]

Hi Gavin

I can't see any yellow dots on your plan (s) only white dots sit on your point work. Can you high light these others in a different way?

Mike

[Guy Rixon]

There is an equal 3 way turnout needed also. If an equal 3 way is actually possible that is...I'm unsure.

There is a formation called, IIUC, a "three-throw turnout" where two sets of switches operate in the same space and the switch toes meet. This is your equal-three-way turnout. I presume its's called "three-throw" because you have to move the switches in three, separate operations to change from extreme-left to extreme-right road. You hardly ever find these things in full-size railways because the track-structure is weak and you need more operating gear. I think you would never find one in a running line (except possibly in a street tramway).

Looking at your plan, can you not convert the three-throw -- it's where the branch and the short siding diverge from the running line, right? -- into a conventional tandem by shifting the turnout for the siding to the left by one switch length? You have enough space spare to do this without shortening the siding.

[Knuckles]

The 3 way at least I know exists now. I cpuld turn it into a LH Tandem my only worry is the geometry would be more awkward and a bit if guess work. Anyrail only uses standard Exactoscape turnouts and I keep trying to get past Templot's 2nd tutorial but it never seems to work for me. I really need to be able to make a few bits with it.

Mike, urm, I'm unsure what you mean to be honest. The circles are control points where you cwn move stuff about. The text in the pic is refering to 3 points that are colourd yellow - this is the other part of my queery and confusion.

As they are 00 geometry I was thinking of bending some templates to match but don't know if I am asking for trouble as they are about 2.5ft radius. I only want to run a 4-4-0 and a 0-6-0 down it but I'm still guessing currently. :/

The loft is slowly getting more suitable and the boards can be built soon once I'm more sure.
I still haven't fully decided the fiddle arrangement yet but thinking of some crossovers on each extreme end.

[Mike Garwood]

Ahh, got 'em now. DOH!

Mike

[Guy Rixon]

I found a thread elsewhere discussing 3-throw formations: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=1889&. Please note Martin Wynne's post, some way down the thread, about the problems of checking the centre road. Since the centre road in Knuckle's plan is a running line, I think the three-throw is going to cause problems here. That's real problems of stock coming off, not hypothetical problems with getting the BoT to approve it.

[Martin Wynne]

Anyrail only uses standard Exactoscape turnouts and I keep trying to get past Templot's 2nd tutorial but it never seems to work for me. I really need to be able to make a few bits with it.

Hi Knuckles,

In the last few days I have made a tentative start on a new beginner's tutorial for Templot. There is very little yet, but I'm hoping to add a lot more in the coming weeks. You can find it here:

http://templot.com/companion

It includes the first of several videos, which you may find more convenient to watch using this link:

https://flashbackconnect.com/Default.as ... OidDlmRrQ2

(On Android mobile devices, you need to watch the video in Google Chrome and not the native Android browser, otherwise the video may not pause for you to read the notes.)

If you have Templot running, you can watch the same video in better image quality directly in Templot. Click the help > watch a video > Templot Explained first off menu item:



If it is not showing in the menu, restart Templot or click the help > obtain video list menu item, and try again.

More to follow soon. I'm trying to write it from the perspective of raw beginners, because so many folks keep saying that Templot is unintelligible to them. Far more than in the early days of Templot 17 years ago, and I'm wondering if the modelling demographic has changed? Or maybe it's simply that Templot now has a much wider user base.

regards,

Martin.

[Paul Willis]

Anyrail only uses standard Exactoscape turnouts and I keep trying to get past Templot's 2nd tutorial but it never seems to work for me. I really need to be able to make a few bits with it.

More to follow soon. I'm trying to write it from the perspective of raw beginners, because so many folks keep saying that Templot is unintelligible to them. Far more than in the early days of Templot 17 years ago, and I'm wondering if the modelling demographic has changed? Or maybe it's simply that Templot now has a much wider user base.

Two very good questions. Can I offer some thoughts from someone who for six or eight years was absolutely resolutely in the "what a stupid program!" camp, and having taken a deep breath, read the tutorials carefully and (most importantly) approached learning Templot WITH A BLANK MIND has become a great advocate of it, and taking the time to explain how good it really is. And as someone that started with computers as a 14 year old, in BASIC and machine code on a Sinclair ZX81 borrowed from a friend, I'm at the cusp of that demographic to whom computers are just part of everyday life.

The demographic thing is that over time, *everyone* has become used to a WIMP interface and a standardised set of commands, whether on a Mac or a Windows. You see this most when people can't find the CTRL+Z combination for Undo in Templot - *everything" does Undo in the same way, doesn't it?

I know enough of how things started that not all programs started with the same command set. But over time that has changed, and most people now find it remarkably simple to leap from a graphics package to a word processor to a spreadsheet to a photo-editor, and all of the basics work the same way. Of course the detailed functionality differs because of the specialist commands that serve the specific purposes. However you can fundamentally make any bit of modern software do the basics just by loading it and clicking.

And this is where your link with the wider user base of Templot comes in. Partly because it is SO DAMN GOOD, the fame of Templot and the impressive results that experienced users can produce means that many more people want to try it. And they come from this generation - my generation and younger - where they are used to swapping between standardised packages that all have the same interface. In the case of Knuckles, he's not exactly lazy about learning software - you've only got to see what he's been doing, as an amateur, in CAD to know this. And it causes problems when the "defaults" don't work the same. Templot is like a left-hand drive car. It does the same things, but all the controls are in different places!

So that is why I emphasise to people that they must learn Templot from scratch, and do it *your* way. Don't try and cut corners by thinking that it works like Apple or Windows, because it doesn't. I still come back to it after a couple months and need to learn the basics again. But these days I don't hate the program for that

Cheers
Flymo

[Knuckles]

Ahh, got 'em now. DOH!

Mike

Yup!

I found a thread elsewhere discussing 3-throw formations: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=1889&. Please note Martin Wynne's post, some way down the thread, about the problems of checking the centre road. Since the centre road in Knuckle's plan is a running line, I think the three-throw is going to cause problems here. That's real problems of stock coming off, not hypothetical problems with getting the BoT to approve it.

Thanks Guy, You've helped convince me I need a standard LH Tandem or at least similar. Ping goes the 3-Way.

In the last few days I have made a tentative start on a new beginner's tutorial for Templot. There is very little yet, but I'm hoping to add a lot more in the coming weeks. You can find it here........Martin.

Many thanks, Martin.
I managed tutorial 1 ok and that makes sense. Tutorial 2 I have not been able to get past yet, I attempted it at least 3 times pausing every video and copying exactly. I was starting to understand bits but the main issues I had were some of the links in the video caused my Firewall to explode and crash the system and I spent ages trying to tell it to turn a blind eye but to no avail, the second issue was when getting to fitting the switchblades it didn't do the same as the video did. I got different results both times. :/ I even went to the pre-set EM setting so everything should have been the same but this is where I have been stuck mostly.
I'll check the links out and thanks for the advice. I thought the video presentations as they were were fine it's just I had trouble copying them as different things happened sometimes and so I still haven't made that single slip yet!

Two very good questions. Can I offer some thoughts from someone who for six or eight years was absolutely resolutely in the "what a stupid program!".....

I actually think Templot is awesome....I just haven't been able to use it yet.

In the case of Knuckles, he's not exactly lazy about learning software - you've only got to see what he's been doing, as an amateur, in CAD to know this.

Thanks. I haven't progressed to a 'real' CAD package yet...but I have full plans to when the time is right. I'm happy with the programs I'm using so far. Pro's and Con's to all tools I guess. I supposes any package is technically CAD, as in Computor Aided Design even if it isn't called CAD officially.


I'm still a bit dumb founded with those 2.5FT radius '00' points I inserted into the plan to represent P4 ones, does anyone think they would allow a 4-4-0 or 0-6-0 around? I'm unsure how to use anything bigger due to geometry but as I need to change that 3-Way into a LH Tandem at least then that should throw things out and require a rethink.

This basic plan has been reworked and reworked perpetually for around 4 or 5 years now.

I think most of it I can build as planned as it uses Exactoscale standard turnouts (or at least the geometry as I want to hand build most if not all the track) but at least 3 areas I need to custom build things and this is where I really need to learn the ol' Templot.

[grovenor-2685]

Guy Rixon wrote:
I found a thread elsewhere discussing 3-throw formations: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=1889&. Please note Martin Wynne's post, some way down the thread, about the problems of checking the centre road. Since the centre road in Knuckle's plan is a running line, I think the three-throw is going to cause problems here. That's real problems of stock coming off, not hypothetical problems with getting the BoT to approve it.

Thanks Guy, You've helped convince me I need a standard LH Tandem or at least similar. Ping goes the 3-Way.

Actually a symmmetrical 3 way has perfectly good checking of the centre road as each wing rail checks the opposite crossing. the problem with 3-ways is in getting the switches to fit nicely, then getting operating rods in place without upsetting that fitting. However, it is correct that they were used in sidings (as is mine, and the 5 way on Green St. which uses two sets of three way switches) and I have never seen a picture of one on a running line. I would remove it, I don't think you should have the facing crossover there anyway, facing access into a short siding is very odd.
Regards

[Martin Wynne]

Thanks Paul. When I started on what was eventually to become Templot, I was 31 years old. I'm now 67. I simply don't have enough lifetime left to start again.

But lots of others do. For years I have been hoping to wake up one morning and find someone has written "son of Templot", letting me off the hook. But so far, no joy. As far as I know, the only ones to have a go are Jeff Geary with Trax, and Christian Sender with S-21:

http://www.crecy.co.uk/trax-3-signallin ... ver-frames

https://translate.google.co.uk/translat ... llgleis.de

But Ctrl+Z is indeed undo. It undoes a stored template deleted by mistake. And the dialog tells you how to undo changes to the control template, if that's what you were actually looking for:

ctrl_z_undo.png

regards,

Martin.