Track Planning & Layout Ideas - New Builds Started

Tell us about your layout, where you put it, how you built it, how you operate it.
Knuckles
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas.

Postby Knuckles » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:51 pm

Ok many thanks guys, that really helps. ;) I saved a 2nd time and it came up with a name itself so that makes sense as a type of 'save as' effect.

I've been piddling about and watched a few vids, the Scruff vids are fine and perfectly neat to understand.

I'm not after any well dons or anything but to me this is the most I have ever managed so for me at least it is the best start. I have been piddling with the bit of track at the bottom and made a sort of whatever things, tweaking as I went to line the tracks up, just playing about seeing how things work. As illogical (the bottom layout) as this is so far it is the most I managed. Hoping to pick this up well.

I learnt about making a branch and how to use the make split so you can tweak a bit.

What is the difference between delete to the control and make the control though? I have been just using the make to control as it seems a similar thing and safer.

Wee progress for learning
Templot Progress.jpg
Last edited by Knuckles on Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

Winander
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas.

Postby Winander » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:19 pm

Knuckles wrote:What is the difference between delete to the control and make the control though? I have been just using the make to control as it seems a similar things and safer.


Hi Knuckles,

This confuses me too, and I haven't found an answer. All I want to do is keep the track I have just created and create a new piece. I usually use "Store & Background" and often this results in a number of identical copies of the track section piled on top of one another. I realise this is probably harmless as only the top one is visible, but I'm sure it makes my Storage Box a mess and there is a better way to do it.

regards
Richard Hodgson

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas.

Postby Martin Wynne » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:21 pm

Knuckles wrote:What is the difference between delete to the control and make the control though? I have been just using the make to control as it seems a similar things and safer.

Hi Knuckles,

make the control is just a user convenience to perform 2 functions in one go:

1. same as the Insert key. Store a copy of the existing control template and put it on the background. Then,

2. same as delete to the control. Delete the clicked stored template to the control template.

All the functions containing the word "make", e.g. in the tools menu, work the same way. The existing control template is first stored, and then a new one is created or modified in some way.

For a simple track plan, make the control can be used most of the time. When things get more complicated with multiple overlaid partial templates, more control is needed by using the individual functions in the menu.

regards,

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

Knuckles
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas.

Postby Knuckles » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:49 pm

Winander wrote:All I want to do is keep the track I have just created and create a new piece. I usually use "Store & Background" and often this results in a number of identical copies of the track section piled on top of one another.


Been there too, struggling to understand it but we will get there. Also when you press Undo/Back it seems to give a set of blue shadow templates that I then delete. Unsure what is going on there!

Martin Wynne wrote:
make the control is just a user convenience to perform 2 functions in one go:
...snip...
For a simple track plan, make the control can be used most of the time. When things get more complicated with multiple overlaid partial templates, more control is needed by using the individual functions in the menu.


Hi Martin. I don't fully understand but as you said it is more important later I guess it will be more obvious or needed then. Thanks again. :)
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas.

Postby Martin Wynne » Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:16 pm

Winander wrote:All I want to do is keep the track I have just created and create a new piece. I usually use "Store & Background" and often this results in a number of identical copies of the track section piled on top of one another. I realise this is probably harmless as only the top one is visible, but I'm sure it makes my Storage Box a mess and there is a better way to do it.

Hi Richard,

When you have finished adjusting the control template and want to add it to your track plan, you can:

EITHER

A. Do store & background (or press the Insert key*, or click the orange down-arrows button).

In this case the control template remains unchanged, and you can continue to make changes to it or move it elsewhere, or maybe click the NEW button to replace it and start again with a fresh one.

OR

B. Click on the next background template which you want to modify, and then click make the control on its menu.

DON'T DO BOTH, otherwise you will get duplicate templates stacked on top of one another. When you do B, Templot first does A for you. The same applies to all the tools > make... functions.

*alternatively you can press the Not key, if your keyboard doesn't have an Insert key. The Not key is at top left next to number 1 key, marked ¬ .

regards,

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

Winander
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas.

Postby Winander » Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:46 pm

Hi Martin,

I understand now. Thanks very much.

regards,
Richard Hodgson

Knuckles
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas.

Postby Knuckles » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:00 pm

Making some progress. Converted all the sleepers to 9' and learnt how to timber shove too, happy days. Timber shoving is really easy to use actually, lots of options, will leave most of it till the end though as the rails are the main concern.

I'm a little unsure if the right hand inside main urve will be ok for a Pacific or 10-Wheeler at 39" radius but then again many have said in other threads they can get a 9F to flow around a 3' curve so maybe ok. I think I'm probably worying too much.

Next will have to import the original picture so I can get an idea of where to put boundries for boards and things then i can try to continue the track plan itself.


EDIT: Yay! Done it. Had a bit of trouble scaling and had to convert MM to Feet but no biggy.

http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?i ... orum_id=22 <----- Awesome. :thumb
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas.

Postby Martin Wynne » Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:10 pm

Knuckles wrote:Making some progress. Converted all the sleepers to 9' and learnt how to timber shove too, happy days. Timber shoving is really easy to use actually, lots of options, will leave most of it till the end though as the rails are the main concern.

I'm a little unsure if the right hand inside main urve will be ok for a Pacific or 10-Wheeler at 39" radius but then again many have said in other threads they can get a 9F to flow around a 3' curve so maybe ok.

Hi Knuckles,

I'm puzzled why you want 9ft sleepers? I think you said you were modelling the early 1950s? The last new 9ft sleepers would have been used about 1920. By 1950 any of those remaining would be in yards and sidings only.

I have modified the radii on the right to a closer match to your original 1180mm/1131mm curves. The price of that is having the platforms 50mm shorter.

.box file below.

regards,

Martin.
Attachments
knuckles_knapford_unshoved_2.box
(456.98 KiB) Downloaded 71 times
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

Knuckles
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Knapford Junction

Postby Knuckles » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:38 pm

Hi Martin, I only just saw this so will check the file out in the morning. :)

Th layout is the pre 1955 version of Knapford because by 1956 the station and yard was moved to north of the River Els (in the Sudrian info and maps), the latter Knapford is a lot bigger and I'd need 25' or more to model it.

The pre 1955 version was originally set up around 1910 if I remember correctly, will get my sources out tomorrow.

As well as Sudrian type trains I also want to model pre-Groupies too so that would cater for a mix of fiction and reality all in one. Furness, MR, LNWR, & L&YR are my main interest here currently.

I know sleepers were reduced and left mainly in yards but my reasons are the NWR kept its independance in 1923 against the grouping and was also going through a crisis having to return many borrowed locomotives and so priorities were motive power more than anything else. They literally were grasping at straws so converting sleepers were not imposed upon them by those above nore was the change their priority. Maybe by 1940 or '55 they were by then all chopped by 6" but as I can only model one option the 9' seems the better choice.

A Met-Vic on 9' is probably wrong and a Furness J1 on 8' 6" unless it survived is probably wrong too!
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas.

Postby Martin Wynne » Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:14 am

Knuckles wrote:They literally were grasping at straws so converting sleepers were not imposed upon them by those above nore was the change their priority. Maybe by 1940 or '55 they were by then all chopped by 6" but as I can only model one option the 9' seems the better choice.

Hi Knuckles,

No-one ever chopped 6" off a sleeper. What happened was that as 9ft sleepers became life expired, they were replaced with 8ft-6in sleepers. Good-quality close-grained Baltic redwood sleepers have a life of about 30 years in running lines. For less expensive faster-growing timbers such as Douglas fir, the useful life is about 15-20 years. Life expired means that they split and rot, and can no longer be relied on to hold the rail fastenings securely.

Which means that over a period of about 30 years from about 1920, 9ft sleepers were progressively renewed with 8ft-6in sleepers, and by about 1950 there would have been few if any remaining in running lines. Serviceable old 9ft sleepers removed from running lines may then have been re-used in yards and sidings, or in such locations original 9ft sleepers may have lasted a lot longer.

I don't understand why you say you can only model one option? You can model any individual sleeper to any length you wish. In Templot, the sleeper length setting is specific to each template, and individual sleepers can be shoved to any length.

regards,

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

Knuckles
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Knapford Junction

Postby Knuckles » Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:40 am

:D

I think we got our P&C crossed here.

I know the sleepers were not chopped, rather phased out and replaced. I was talking in slang. My appologies for being unclear.

By modelling one option what I meant was that once the layout is built, it will have to be built with either short or long sleepers so I have chosen 9' as I want to model early days mostly. :)


EDIT: Ok just looked, that seems better. ;) Thankyou.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

Knuckles
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Knapford Junction

Postby Knuckles » Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:40 pm

To my amazement I have managed to make a curviform double junction. Really surprised I managed it. These tutorials really helped. I still don't get the single slip tutorial but this one I do get.

There is a mini issue though that I am unsure how to solve. You said you changed the track centres to be wider to allow for coach clearance. The data boxes show that what I have tried to make from the existing transition curves are the smaller size and there is a slight alignment issue too.

Had a good look and found the adjacent track centre spacing settings but I'm guessing you have to adjust this before making P&C?

EDIT: Found the options. Yeah seems so, adjust them for any articular track then any forms built from that automatically adjust accordingly.

I have remade the curviflrm junctions several times as I'm trying to perfect the alignments but there are two main issues.

I still don't get how to do transition curves properly. Selecting the option seems to bend the track out of shape. The other challenge I am trying to work out is how to get the left junctions to be a copy of the right as I do not know. I found how to mirror at peg but no idea how to mirror a formation.

Will ppst stuff once I have something substantial to show.

The text below ghis I cannot edit out on this device so will have to later.

I sgill don't
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

Knuckles
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Knapford Junction

Postby Knuckles » Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:27 pm

knapford 2016 the 23rd July 2016.box
(865.33 KiB) Downloaded 74 times


I have posted the below on Templot forum too but thought some of you may find it of interest.




Ok I have amazed myself with the progress so far. Ever since the double junction tutorial video I have managed to do things with Templot! Might not seem much but for me a biggy.

I cannot fathom how to do transition curves, slecting the option just seems to give a curve that doesn't move much when you want it, also as there are two different track centre distances for straights and curves getting them to align is a bit difficult and as a result a few areas are not even, although I'm doubting visually it will be that obvious in physical form.

Getting tracks to align perfectly has been done mostly with fixed curve radii thus they don't always have the transition they should and the pegs don't always join them, rather my eye does but I'm thinking it might be ok as the curves in the areas I have done at the bottom mostly are generous.

Some track joins clearly haven't been done yet but it is because I haven't figured how to marry the two different track centres. I can bodge them with fixed curve joins as I have in some areas yet the parallel track spacing I'm trying to keep best as I can. The diamond on the scenic stretch will be a single slip eventually.

I've had to position some points in odd positions as they are avoiding baseboard join areas but this is no worry. The fiddle yard has so far been designed with 6 tracks, the middle two as run throughs with two lines either side for other trains, either one or two. I don't want the whole bottom section as a fiddle yard as the plan is to have the top half as a scenic run with a back scene and in future ideas the whole board is planned to be removed and another with a difference scene inserted, so for this reason all the fiddle points are kept off the middle 9foot stretch.

I have found how to timber shove so that will be done later, the main thing for me is where the points will be because once this is nailed (and I think it probably is now) I can build some baseboards with the peace of mind knowing switch blades won't be bridging the gaps.

I need to get the boards through the loft hatch so 2ft width is the max and it seems I might have to make a 6ft board as I'm unsure I can move the points a little to give the gap but I will look at that later, pretty sure I can.

Would it be possible for you to please have a look and give pointers? I'm not asking for things to be redone but if you could maybe highlight bits with red circles and tell me what/how to fix things I'd be really appreciative and can have a go then.

As I said earlier as rough as it currently is I'm amazed I have managed to do what I have so all good. :)

knapford_2016_07_23_1729_13.png
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Knapford Junction

Postby Martin Wynne » Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:08 pm

Hi Gavin,

I'm sure I have posted about the make transition function many times, but here is a quick bit of video showing how to do it on your track plan:

https://flashbackconnect.com/Default.as ... pXE4ek1mg2

If you search for "make transition" you will find lots of references. See for example:

http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/make_trans.htm

It's looking good. Image

regards,

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

Knuckles
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Knapford Junction

Postby Knuckles » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:40 pm

As on Templot pasted here too.



Many thanks Martin. :)

I have looked about making them but as is often with me and Templot comprehension is limited.

I managed to follow the video so hopefully others can learn too, what I don't understand is why on the track below it I cannot replicate the same thing. EDIT - managed now, no idea how though!

I've have made the single tracks all split from the peg and when I delete to control it gets deleted, then I press back to rectify it and it deletes a different bit of track...I end up reloading things a lot. No idea what I am doing wrong here!

I have made the plan so far with only the make the control function as deleting things doesn't seem to work out well, I usually delete mystery duplicate templates after manually.

I have managed to do 6 or 7 transitions so far so all good. When I try the transition thing it sometimes says it is invalid, no idea why so I try it from the other end and sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Either way I'm doing well in my own estimation. Thanks for your feedback. :)
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Knapford Junction

Postby Martin Wynne » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:53 pm

Knuckles wrote:I have managed to do 6 or 7 transitions so far so all good. When I try the transition thing it sometimes says it is invalid, no idea why so I try it from the other end and sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.

Hi Gavin,

If the transition calculation fails it is almost certainly because your two templates intersect. You may need to extend the length of them to see where this is happening. This also means that if they are both curving in the same direction they cannot both be the same radius.

It is mathematically impossible to create a transition curve if the centre-lines intersect. You need to adjust the radius of one or other of them until there is always a gap between them, i.e. they nowhere touch or cross over. The gap can be very small but it must exist. Here is what I mean by a gap:

Image

The terminology for transition curves is explained on this page:

http://templot.com/martweb/gs_geometry.htm#transition

I'm sorry you are having problems with this, but it is all explained in the program if you click the Help buttons, and also on this page of the web site (sorry it is so old):

http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/make_trans.htm

Here for example are the Help notes copied and pasted direct from Templot:
______________________________________

Make Transition Curve from Control Template to Background Template

For diagrams and a tutorial sequence showing the use of this function, please refer to the Templot Companion pages on the Templot web site at templot.com .

This function creates a new control template on a transition curve alignment, which can be used to link two existing templates.

The 1st radius and radial centres are taken from the existing control template. The 2nd radius and radial centres are taken from the selected background template.

The existing control template is automatically stored on the background.

N.B. In order to produce a usable result in all circumstances, this function uses a lower level of calculation precision than other Templot functions. Occasionally you may notice small discrepancies in the rail alignments when viewed zoomed-in to high magnification on the screen. This will be of no consequence in practical track planning.

There are two possible transition curves in any given case, one of each hand. In many cases it is not obvious which hand is required. If the first one tried is not correct, the dialog which appears allows a template of the opposite hand to be easily created instead.

For this function to work the following conditions must be fulfilled:

1. One of the original templates can be straight, but not both.

2. No part of the imaginary full circle or straight line which would be created by extending the track centre-line of one original template may intersect (cross) any part of the imaginary full circle or straight line which would be created by extending the track centre-line of the other original template.

3. If the two imaginary circles are completely separate, the result will be an S-curve transition.

4. If the smaller imaginary circle is completely contained within the larger imaginary circle, the result will be a C-curve transition.

5. If the two circles are just touching (for example if the two templates have been aligned at a common boundary using the peg and notch functions), the result will be a zero-length transition at the boundary.

6. The resulting transition must not be more gentle than the current [ max spiral ] setting permits. For a C-curve transition, this means that there must be a sufficient difference between the two radii. For more information click the [ program > expert > transition maths > max spiral... ] item on the [ program panel ] menus.

The new control template will have a 1 chain (66ft) (scale) length of 1st radius before the transition start position, and a similar length of 2nd radius beyond the transition end position.

The final task of extending or shortening the new template at each end, and/or doing likewise with the original templates, in order to position the template boundaries and create a full linking template between them, remains for you to do. (Put the fixing peg at the opposite end and then use the F4 mouse action to adjust the overall length).

Often when using this function the original templates are dummy templates created solely for the purpose. These are then deleted and the new transition template is extended at each end to replace them. If the [ delete the original templates ] box is ticked, this will happen automatically when you click the [ yes - continue ] green bar to accept the new transition curve template.

If one of the original templates is itself containing a transition curve a dialog will appear asking how you want to proceed. The new transition curve can be matched to 1st or 2nd radius on the original template, or matched to the radius at the current position of its fixing peg. If this is within the transition zone, you will need to shorten the original template to this position in order to make a correct boundary with the new control template. Use the [ do > snap to peg ] menu item, possibly preceded by [ template > swap end-for-end ]. Repeat [ template > swap end-for-end ] on the original template if necessary after creating the new transition (for example if the original template is a turnout).

This function is not available if one of the original templates contains a slew. If a slew is needed it can be applied after creating the transition curve.

______________________________________

regards,

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

Knuckles
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Knapford Junction

Postby Knuckles » Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:44 am

Hi Martin, I did read it from your links before I gave it a go. I took note of where it said to make sure there is a gap and misalignment, sometimes it still said invalid which is what confused me. Appologies if I'm pestering somewhat. I know you must be going mad by now with pointing people to the same things repeatedly, I know that one from my YouTube channels. :/
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

Knuckles
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Toryreck Mines

Postby Knuckles » Wed May 31, 2017 11:42 am

As I am now back in the design stages for two end to end layouts I'm hoping someone could point me in a direction.

The above Knapford Junction plans are not sacked, not by a long shot. They however are shelved due go the project being a little too big for the current space and sense tells me some small things as practice may be better. The other issue I have is the trains would come on scene, rush through the station and that would be it (bar some shunting). Ideally I need a longer run to and out of the station as it is cramped currently, yet as a layout design I still very much want it.

So for now as I'm planning a 00-SF layout (another first) and a 2nd P4 layout as end to ends could you please help?

I only have a pretty sure idea of one of them and that is Toryreck Mines. Likely a Timesaver/Inglenook style thing.

The location is standard gauge, fictional and it has steam lines and sidings going into the shafts. It worked Lead and when that ran out was closed for a bit, later they found Uranium and so was reopened.

I have looked on the search engines and found next to nothing. :(

I could do with some info and pictures on what infrastructure these places had for said minerals bar the minehead wheel and the way in which they worked.

If anyone has any links or books I should buy please suggest.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Knapford Junction

Postby Guy Rixon » Wed May 31, 2017 12:38 pm

Wheal Betsy (http://www.richkni.co.uk/dartmoor/betsy.htm) was a Devonshire lead mine near Tavistock; it's on the west flank of Dartmoor. The heavier the metal, the deeper in the granite it deposits, so Betsy had a 900ft shaft; c.f. the copper mine at Morwellham where some of the adits are at river level. Uranium, if there is any, would be very deep indeed.

I think the surviving, part-ruined engine house would have been for a "Cornish" pumping engine. A 900ft shaft is going to flood if not robustly pumped. I don't know if there was once a separate engine house for winding gear.

There would have been a set of stamps for breaking up the ore, and some facilities for washing the broken ore. The washing used a lot of water, which is not exactly in short supply on Dartmoor, but collecting the water involved a long leat and a small reservoir. I've walked the length of the leat; it's a comfortable amble on a sunny day and about the only flat walk to be had anywhere on the moor! The stamps would almost certainly be water-powered.

Some of the ore was smelted on site and some shipped out.

Therefore, summarising facilities: pumping engine; pit headgear and winding engine; leat and reservoir; stamps in stamp house; smelter; stock of raised ore chunks; stock of broken ore pieces for smelter; (possibly separate) stock of ore for shipping; fuel stocks for smelter and stationary engines; stock of smelted metal for shipping; tip for waste from stamps and smelter; pit-head facilities for the miners (possibly very basic).

Knuckles
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Toryreck Mines

Postby Knuckles » Wed May 31, 2017 1:18 pm

Wow, sounds more comprehensive and exciting after reading that. Thanks a bunch Guy, your info helps a lot and I haven't even read the link yet. This is the kind of thing I need to know.

I love the idea of the mine having old buggered rusty lead mining stuff about with some slightly newer developments. Plenty of scope to model crap everywhere - my kind of scene.

If anyone else has additional that'd be great also. More the merrier.
Some of these machines and buildings will take a while to research as I don't even know what some of them look like or do.


Edit: Managed to find also an Ore Sorter and Miners Dry are possible facilities too. I'm guessing the sorter would involve some kind of refinement process. Would this be the smelter or would it be a group of brush monkeys sorting rocks by hand? I have no idea.

The dry I'm guessing is self explanatory, have a fire in there and dry it. Unsure why this would be needed unless it is before being refined by fire maybe.
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Thomas Paine

http://www.shapeways.com/shops/sparksho ... eationsscc
Mostly offering Loco kits & bits in 4mm.
SCC Photon Resin Prints Price list
download/file.php?id=19320

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1331
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Toryreck Mines

Postby Noel » Wed May 31, 2017 1:50 pm

Only one mine in the UK has intentionally raised uranium ore apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_by_country and go to 'United Kingdom', and that wasn't overly successful, nor did it do much better with radium http://www.cornwallinfocus.co.uk/mining/sterras.php. Radium ores are radioactive, uranium ores somewhat less so, but both are definitely hazardous, although the severity of the hazard was not originally realised, because the effects only manifest over the longer term.
Regards
Noel

User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Toryreck Mines

Postby Guy Rixon » Wed May 31, 2017 3:16 pm

Washing the ore after it comes off the stamps is a simple form of sorting. The idea (IIUC) is that the material breaks up into tiny flakes of non-metal-bearing rock and clumpy bits of higher-quality ore. The water washes away the waste flakes.

Smelting is not the same as sorting. One does sorting to reduce the cost of running the smelter. Also to reduce the cost of shipping the ore, I guess.

There are remains of stamp houses and ore-washing facilities dotted around north Dartmoor, mainly from the the tin mining. From what remains, it looks like they all had stone-built foundations, possibly with channels cut in the bedrock for the washing, and might have had timber sheds covering them (not that the ore minds the rain, but the machinery might last longer if it's under cover). One expects a pit for a small wheel to run the stamps, although I've seen a couple of sites with no sign of such.

I don't know anything about drying ore. Perhaps it needs to be dried to avoid steam explosions in the smelter?

PS: if uranium is not likely in a British mine, how about silver or gold?

PPS: additional action in a lead mine is a tall woman and a bunch of convicts chasing an alien. Might make an interesting cameo.

User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Toryreck Mines

Postby Guy Rixon » Wed May 31, 2017 4:11 pm

Looks like the dry was the pit-head facilities for the miners, not to do with handling the ore. See http://www.geevor.com/index.php?object=245.

dal-t
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:06 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Toryreck Mines

Postby dal-t » Wed May 31, 2017 6:51 pm

With the (even low-level) radiation issue, I presume modern Save Tea will insist the actual layout is contained within a sealed lead-and-concrete sarcophagus with internal movements only revealed to the paying public by a CCTV link. Sounds like an interesting engineering challenge (vague echoes of an early Spring feature long ago, (in was it the Constructor?) about running LT Underground models below floorboards); I wonder if anyone in our Russian branch has experience of such a project?
David L-T

User avatar
steve howe
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:16 pm

Re: Track Planning & Layout Ideas - Toryreck Mines

Postby steve howe » Wed May 31, 2017 11:01 pm

Cornish 'stamps' were invariably in the open air, the surviving set at Tolgus is in a shed but that may not be original. http://tolgus-tin.org/The crushed ore ran with water by gravity initially to settling tanks and then to the tin mill which were covered buildings, usually wooden with (latterly) corrugated iron roofs. The refining process was extremely long and complicated and would take up a lot of space if it were to be modelled in entirety (as well as not being very interesting to look at!) Broken ore was sometimes roasted in a Calciner to drive off the impurities before further crushing, The Brunton Calciner was an interesting device (Google it for details) housed in an attractive little square stone building.

Its worth remembering that tin and copper mines in the Westcountry were not generally well served by rail either because of geography or the fact that most of them were well in decline before the railways really got going.

Steve


Return to “Layouts and Operations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests