Eversley Green - P4 BR (S) layout

Tell us about your layout, where you put it, how you built it, how you operate it.
Phil O
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 5:23 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Phil O » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:45 pm

kelly wrote:
Phil O wrote:Kelly

Here is a link to the 1965/71 map.

https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/507653 ... /12/100954

Phil


Unfortuately I can't seem to view that at present. IIRC Natalie has an old-maps account, so I'll get her to login later and have a proper look. She's probably already looked heavily at it before suggesting it as she's been doing most of the location/track plan research really.



I don't have an account, but if you scroll through the maps on the left until you see the one you want and click on it a couple of times it should come up, but don't blow it up too large otherwise you loose it.

Phil

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:54 pm

Phil O wrote:
kelly wrote:
Phil O wrote:Kelly

Here is a link to the 1965/71 map.

https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/507653 ... /12/100954

Phil


Unfortuately I can't seem to view that at present. IIRC Natalie has an old-maps account, so I'll get her to login later and have a proper look. She's probably already looked heavily at it before suggesting it as she's been doing most of the location/track plan research really.



I don't have an account, but if you scroll through the maps on the left until you see the one you want and click on it a couple of times it should come up, but don't blow it up too large otherwise you loose it.

Phil


Ah, yes, saw the 64 and 76 maps showing it as Natalie originally drew it before we made some alterations on the boards. Thanks for the links.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

Armchair Modeller

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Armchair Modeller » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:18 am

The NLS site has a narrower choice of maps, but the scanning is far superior

http://maps.nls.uk/view/103658534

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:50 pm

Armchair Modeller wrote:The NLS site has a narrower choice of maps, but the scanning is far superior

http://maps.nls.uk/view/103658534


Thanks for that.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:41 pm

Not a great deal has occurred recently for one reason or another.

At Scalefour North I did pick up some track components (exactoscale bases, bh rail, exactoscale a6 kit, and other gauges etc).

A quick play with Templot leads me to need a slight rethink I think on the curves, I can get one to be over 1000mm (below and Templot flashes red), but double tracking it, makes the inside track too sharp. I'll have to have a word with Natalie next time I see her. I have however got a 3ftx2ft board ordered, which will have allowance for expansion beyond 9ft total length at a later date (dowel holes), and provision for a traverser to go on the side.

Not sure how best to approach the curve, the double track is a feature of the real Shepperton location, but I have a feeling it would be too sharp to try to curve it around in the space, unless the transition started before the last board by a fair amount to stretch out the curves. Suggestions welcome.

This is however, the entire point of doing this layout, to figure out and learn these problems before tackling something bigger.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Thu May 11, 2017 11:33 pm

Been giving some more thought to the plan in terms of the right hand side, and some changes have been needed to fit the curves in (as expected, trying to fit them into 3ftx2ft was too tight!). All part of the learning curve I guess!

Anyway, with an extra 3ftx2ft board forming the L (so 9ftx5ft+4ft traverser) it should work having played around in Templot.

I've printed off a couple of the plans, so I can discuss with a few people hopefully at ExpoEM.

I've not yet gotten a chance to sit down and start building the track (been wanting the curve situation resolved seemed best) with a lot of other things getting in the way (fiance's 40th birthday and a good friend's wedding, with gifts being made for both taking up time).

Anyhow, the revised plan is below:

I've changed the points on the curve to c8s to fit them in (it isn't aligned quite right in the Templot plan as yet as I was mostly messing around seeing what worked, so the point template is just overlaid). And B6s elsewhere, with some A6s for sidings. No crossover/slips on this plan either! Some aspects (such as the lower most point/siding) will probably get changed.

p4_layoutl_2017_05_12_0032_13.png

sketchboard_2017_05_12_0031_33.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

Mark Tatlow
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Mark Tatlow » Fri May 12, 2017 7:33 am

Kelly,

I am not convinced by the bottom-most siding. To get to it you need to go through four moves including into the bay; which seems extreme.

Its your trainset but I would either make it run parallel with the bay or run it such that it can be reached direct from the "arrivals" platform" (the bottom one)
Mark Tatlow

User avatar
Guy Rixon
Posts: 909
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Guy Rixon » Fri May 12, 2017 9:20 am

Mark's point about the awkward siding is significant. My guess is that the railway company would not have laid the siding like that when the line was first built, but they might have added it later if they needed to get to something on that part of the map, simply because it was cheaper and less disruptive. So, to justify the layout, I think you need to put something, like an industry or a loading bank, along the siding. Perhaps it's where the cattle dock used to be?

Of course, the kick-back siding makes a lot more sense if the station used to be shunted using horses. Consider Ashburton.

What does strike me is that the main platform would be very narrow with the current plan. I think the BoT inspector would worry about that. Is it feasible to slew the bay road away from the main road?

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri May 12, 2017 1:27 pm

Mark Tatlow wrote:Kelly,

I am not convinced by the bottom-most siding. To get to it you need to go through four moves including into the bay; which seems extreme.

Its your trainset but I would either make it run parallel with the bay or run it such that it can be reached direct from the "arrivals" platform" (the bottom one)


That siding isn't fixed in the plan, and likely will get changed (as I mention in the text). So it might well end up getting deleted. I might move the point to the other side so it is no longer a kick-back. Either that or swapping it to face the other way, but that will lead to a fairly small siding. The key changes really are rotating the plan to make the curves fit within the 9ft total length and adding C8 points to make the run round bit.

Guy Rixon wrote:Mark's point about the awkward siding is significant. My guess is that the railway company would not have laid the siding like that when the line was first built, but they might have added it later if they needed to get to something on that part of the map, simply because it was cheaper and less disruptive. So, to justify the layout, I think you need to put something, like an industry or a loading bank, along the siding. Perhaps it's where the cattle dock used to be?

Of course, the kick-back siding makes a lot more sense if the station used to be shunted using horses. Consider Ashburton.

What does strike me is that the main platform would be very narrow with the current plan. I think the BoT inspector would worry about that. Is it feasible to slew the bay road away from the main road?


See above. Natalie has been researching the area, so it might be she finds a relevant reason for it to be there. The curving siding is meant to serve a ballast/sand pit iirc from what she was saying.

Another option is changing the two points at the bottom for a slip or crossover arrangement.

As for the platform width, they're not drawn to scale in the sketchpad drawing, but the bay siding (for parcels, cattle etc iirc) will probably need altering to make the platform wider. The platform on the other side might well be omitted, as whilst Shepperton had two, only one was used, and for extra room removing it might make sense.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri May 12, 2017 1:42 pm

Taking on board Mark and Guy's comments, I've made a few alterations to the plan.

p4_layoutl_2017_05_12_1438_27.png

p4_layout_v6_2017_05_12_1500_54.png


Mainly changing the bottom point to a crossover and extending it to allow more room for the platform. It does bring the siding close to the edge of the boards however, so that will likely get chopped back a bit.

The crossover will need to be replaced by a slip I think as as it is drawn it won't allow access to the top of the two right sidings. I'm not overly confident in terms of drawing slips in Templot just yet however!

p4_layout_sketchboard_2017_05_12_1500_54.png

p4_layout_v2sketchboard_2017_05_12_1500_54.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by kelly on Fri May 12, 2017 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1976
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Noel » Fri May 12, 2017 2:04 pm

kelly wrote:The curving siding is meant to serve a ballast/sand pit iirc


which would have long been out of use by the days of British Rail.

Guy Rixon wrote:What does strike me is that the main platform would be very narrow with the current plan. I think the BoT inspector would worry about that


The BoT rules required a minimum of 6ft from the edge of the platform to any obstruction. Given that an island platform would have lamp posts down the centre, the absolute minimum would have been 12ft plus the width of the lamp posts. In practice, in outer London suburban stations, where large numbers of people could be expected morning and evening, the actual width would have been significantly greater.
Regards
Noel

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri May 12, 2017 2:27 pm

Noel wrote:
kelly wrote:The curving siding is meant to serve a ballast/sand pit iirc


which would have long been out of use by the days of British Rail.

Guy Rixon wrote:What does strike me is that the main platform would be very narrow with the current plan. I think the BoT inspector would worry about that


The BoT rules required a minimum of 6ft from the edge of the platform to any obstruction. Given that an island platform would have lamp posts down the centre, the absolute minimum would have been 12ft plus the width of the lamp posts. In practice, in outer London suburban stations, where large numbers of people could be expected morning and evening, the actual width would have been significantly greater.


It has been altered to be off scene now. It would be a spoil tip according to Natalie. As it is offscene it is less important what it is to some extent now.

The platform width will need to be looked at at a later point, but I think with the revised plan the width should be ok.

Natalie has still to check various bits of BoT compliance etc. I've just been looking at the planning in Templot mainly at this point. The island/bay isn't, it is a siding for goods/parcels only.

Note from Natalie: "The ballast/spoil tip is supposed to be off scene and is inspired by those at East Peckham, Godstone and Farnham which survived into the 80s at least. At the real Shepperton there was a sand/ballast quarry just outside the station and served by a ground frame Lavender's Siding (on a 1935 signalling plan and on OS maps). From what I understand the resulting holes are still there (place now called Halliwell?) and are being used (incuding as a tip) but served by lorry which cause a lot of problems/issues for local residents.. I agree that by certainly the 1980s the resultant hole would be getting filled up but feel it is a legitimate form of traffic although dwindling in more recent years.

The bay platform is supposed to be a siding serving as a parcels/sundries line. It is possible that there will be a loading dock on the other face of the track and the platform side fenced off. But as Kelly says I have to do the fine detail work to ensure that the Bot regs are complied with (such as platform width, adherence to lading guage and trap points etc.) As an ex signalman this is something that is not negotiable. Trap points need to be added- Kelly keeps missing them off! But thanks for the continued advice it is very helpful and kind of you to take an interest.
"
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:55 pm

Not done a great deal on the plan due to other committments recently.

However, the plan has evolved a bit more to better reflect the prototype location and avoid problems with carriage siding being too sharp. Adding an extra 1 ft x 2ft and 1 ft x 3ft boards shouldn't cause a problem I think to allow the headshunt to be longer and the carriage siding to be more useful.

The main reason for the changes were that I noticed the slip was partly straddling a baseboard join, I couldn't manage to get the tracks to line up with it moved on to the other board and still allowing enough length for carriage siding and headshunt (as well as keeping the sharpness of the curve in check).
The bottom most siding facing left is for a coal merchant siding. The top sidings being for an oil terminal (possibly being swapped out for a aggregates/other industry terminal of some kind).

I'm thinking as steam will also be used, in the top left corner of the top right board a 12" turntable could be installed as a hidden item to lessen handling.

What to do about the bottom right corner is still undecided, I had thought about a private miliatary siding there of some kind, but not sure if that'd be workable.

I've been looking further into the MERG CBUS system and have got some ideas for automation (in terms of singals and points rather than train automation, but that could be arranged just as easily) and detection to limit damage from mis-set points etc as well as displaying on a panel where trains are. It needs some experimentation however.

Previous plan:
p4_layout_v10.0.1_sketchboard_2017_05_12_1500_54.png

Adjusted plan:
p4_layout_v10.0.7.png

p4_layout_v10.0.6_sketchboard_2017_05_12_1500_54.png


Natalie seems to like the new plan. I've printed off the station tracks with crossover to be able to lay it on the boards at a later point. Now the boards all have a coating of white emulsion to seal the wood against damp a bit it is time to look at laying some cork and track, with the right hand side still to be tweaked a bit more.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

John Palmer
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby John Palmer » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:14 am

Have to say that the revised layout looks as though it would be exceedingly awkward to shunt - you need 4 back-and-forth movements to get from the main to the bottom-most siding, and the neck giving access to that siding is no more than about 80' long, restricting the number of wagons it can accommodate with an engine. What's more, the return curve leading from the platform line into the double slip looks quite sharp, and might benefit from some easing.

I played around with a boxfile containing a previous evolution of your layout and came up with this:
Kellys_Layout_Modified.png

I can't be sure whether the tandem that replaces the double slip is clear of your baseboard joint, but it should be close to providing such clearance and would need no more than a little further modification. The connections between the main and the yard in my version employ C12's, giving a minimum radius on the tandem of 934mm - just over 3 feet.

I'm unclear as to which is your carriage siding and whether this is now a single or double tracked line, which could make a difference to the need for any loop. Boxfile also attached which includes templates from some variants - hope this may be of some assistance.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:48 pm

John Palmer wrote:Have to say that the revised layout looks as though it would be exceedingly awkward to shunt - you need 4 back-and-forth movements to get from the main to the bottom-most siding, and the neck giving access to that siding is no more than about 80' long, restricting the number of wagons it can accommodate with an engine. What's more, the return curve leading from the platform line into the double slip looks quite sharp, and might benefit from some easing.

I played around with a boxfile containing a previous evolution of your layout and came up with this:
I can't be sure whether the tandem that replaces the double slip is clear of your baseboard joint, but it should be close to providing such clearance and would need no more than a little further modification. The connections between the main and the yard in my version employ C12's, giving a minimum radius on the tandem of 934mm - just over 3 feet.

I'm unclear as to which is your carriage siding and whether this is now a single or double tracked line, which could make a difference to the need for any loop. Boxfile also attached which includes templates from some variants - hope this may be of some assistance.


The carriage siding is the siding between the main and head shunt on the right.

I've checked the box file and the points arrangements you've put in don't stagger a joint line (if you set Templot to 1ft square grid lines, the 3ft, 6ft and 9ft are the board edges.

I'll have a discussion with Natalie later on and see what she thinks. The revised plan is how Shepperton was in reality, but obviously space caused the headshunt to be too small without adding another foot of length to the plan. The slip reduced the length to enable that to fit at least, but it was difficult to get it all lining up well admittedly.

I've never really figured out Y or tandem point arrangements as you've put in.

EDIT: Natalie has commented on the changes John, she says it would prevent the parcel platform and siding being useable when the right hand line is used as a carriage siding, limiting operational options, hence the headshunt siding to overcome this.

I've attached the box file for what I reworked in my previous post.

Shepperton - v10.0.6a - rearranged slip. Possible extra 1ftx2ft and 1ftx3ft boards to be added..box
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:04 pm

Attached is the rough diagram Natalie drew out quickly to guide me in understanding what she was on about with the prototypical location. It doesn't feature the other bits (oil terminal) etc. She's going to draw out a better one later on.

img001.jpg


The dotted parts being a possible private/military siding. Space probably precludes that though.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

John Palmer
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby John Palmer » Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:56 pm

Ah, all understood now.
Shepperton 1250-2500.jpg
Here's the prototype in the 1:1250-1:2500 series for London. The chained line shows 2000 prototype feet or 26.25' in 4mm scale, to be represented in an available space 9' in length, which seems fairly ambitious. It may help if the main lines can be moved inboard somewhat, to create space to accommodate the carriage siding and shunting neck. Perhaps this can be done with some additional/earlier curvature of the mains as they leave the platform.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

John Palmer
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby John Palmer » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:33 pm

This is what I come up with:
kellys_shepperton_modified.png
Sharpest radius is on the shunting neck to carriage line turnout: 765mm/30.1". Otherwise radii don't come below 3' approximately.
All turnouts within baseboard confines except carriage line to down main turnout, but the joint is close to the turnout's midpoint, so should not create problems. Correct clearances between lines, but I haven't checked vehicle clearances with a dummy vehicle test.
The engine release is a scale 65' long, but could be shortened to advantage because the switch toe on the points forming the up line component in the release crossover are perilously close to the baseboard joint. The whole release crossover would benefit from being shifted leftwards. This could be achieved by shortening the leads, substituting B6's or B7's for the B8's in the current scheme.
The essentials of Shepperton are present but the shunting neck isn't as long as I would like and you won't have room to fit a carriage servicing platform a la Shepperton. I couldn't find a way of moving the main lines further left whilst still keeping them within baseboard confines - had I been able to do this it would have created room to extend the neck parallel to the carriage line.
Boxfile also attached
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:29 pm

John Palmer wrote:This is what I come up with:kellys_shepperton_modified.pngSharpest radius is on the shunting neck to carriage line turnout: 765mm/30.1". Otherwise radii don't come below 3' approximately.
All turnouts within baseboard confines except carriage line to down main turnout, but the joint is close to the turnout's midpoint, so should not create problems. Correct clearances between lines, but I haven't checked vehicle clearances with a dummy vehicle test.
The engine release is a scale 65' long, but could be shortened to advantage because the switch toe on the points forming the up line component in the release crossover are perilously close to the baseboard joint. The whole release crossover would benefit from being shifted leftwards. This could be achieved by shortening the leads, substituting B6's or B7's for the B8's in the current scheme.
The essentials of Shepperton are present but the shunting neck isn't as long as I would like and you won't have room to fit a carriage servicing platform a la Shepperton. I couldn't find a way of moving the main lines further left whilst still keeping them within baseboard confines - had I been able to do this it would have created room to extend the neck parallel to the carriage line.
Boxfile also attached


Thanks for that John. I rather like how that flows.

The platforms, whilst double track and a second one being there, the second platform wasn't ever used, so it can be omitted and the 'oil terminal' could expand over it probably. The tracks would extend to the left hand board edge to make future expansion possible without altering track to allow it. The lenth of the loco release allows longer locos to run round when a later era is used potentially, but it could be shortened.

The carriage sidings would continue under the bridge, so the carriage platforms aren't a problem in that sense.

Where there is a change from 3ftx2ft board to 2ftx3ft board on the right, the corners could be filled with small corner modules, creating a potentially useful spot for the panel to be located also.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

John Palmer
Posts: 825
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby John Palmer » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:32 am

I should have noticed it was a 2' X 3' board, not a 1' 6" X 3' board. That extra six inches makes an enormous difference, making it possible to take the neck to the full length of the carriage siding, if you wish.
sketchboard_2017_07_07_0120_55.png

I have now been able to shove everything leftwards a bit with a slight rotation. This takes the main lines up to the extreme left hand baseboard edge and moves the release crossover away from the baseboard joint. The neck can now be extended outside the carriage siding and I've been able to ease this a bit to a 33" radius on the turnout road. Were you to want a carriage servicing platform there's plenty of room for this - I have included one at the correct 2' width for the Southern concrete variety. The points in the neck now straddle the board joint, but again it's midway along the lead so should be no problem.
I've left in the second platform - easily deleted/disregarded if desired.
There's now also room for a short additional siding, as at Shepperton.
I think this flows a bit better than my previous effort, in which the turnout in the neck wasn't quite as I would have liked. Boxfile attached.
Edited to add: If you retain the second platform for passenger use then the oil terminal needs to be trapped with a couple of tongues in the points leading to the second terminal siding.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:40 am

John Palmer wrote:I should have noticed it was a 2' X 3' board, not a 1' 6" X 3' board. That extra six inches makes an enormous difference, making it possible to take the neck to the full length of the carriage siding, if you wish.sketchboard_2017_07_07_0120_55.png
I have now been able to shove everything leftwards a bit with a slight rotation. This takes the main lines up to the extreme left hand baseboard edge and moves the release crossover away from the baseboard joint. The neck can now be extended outside the carriage siding and I've been able to ease this a bit to a 33" radius on the turnout road. Were you to want a carriage servicing platform there's plenty of room for this - I have included one at the correct 2' width for the Southern concrete variety. The points in the neck now straddle the board joint, but again it's midway along the lead so should be no problem.
I've left in the second platform - easily deleted/disregarded if desired.
There's now also room for a short additional siding, as at Shepperton.
I think this flows a bit better than my previous effort, in which the turnout in the neck wasn't quite as I would have liked. Boxfile attached.
Edited to add: If you retain the second platform for passenger use then the oil terminal needs to be trapped with a couple of tongues in the points leading to the second terminal siding.



Thank you John, that looks great. Your help is much appreciated.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:00 am

Having had a quick look at the box file, I only have two small concerns with two points, as I'm unsure about building a point across a baseboard join.
sketchboard_2017_07_07_0156_50.png


Not sure it is possible to avoid that though really. Any tips on points across joins?

Aside from those two points, I rather like it (as does Natalie). I think I'm about happy otherwise to start building the track on the station board.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:59 pm

QuentinD wrote:I agree that the latest plan is looking very good.

As for the baseboard joins, thank goodness you don't have any points crossing them! But dividing a turnout in the middle is just fine ;)
---------
In all seriousness it wouldn't pose a problem as-drawn, or at least it looks like it could very easily be remedied. As long as you don't make the join near the frog or blades it's functionally no different from two bits of plain line crossing the boards, and that doesn't give anyone pause.

Quentin


Thanks for that Quentin. I'm new to track building.

The revised plan does have the advantage of no crossover or slip to worry about at this stage, so feels a bit less daunting.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby kelly » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:12 pm

Now the track plan is how both Natalie and myself like and are both mostly happy with it, it is time to turn to cleaning it up in some areas.

One of those areas being Timber Shoving. I've made a start (see attached box file), but not sure if I am doing it correctly atm.

I've printed off the station part so we could lay it out to get a feel for how it looks and using a 4CEP motor coach tested clearances and all mostly looks good, with adequate room for a 4 car unit or 4 coaches + loco (just).

Any hints/advice with regards the timber shoving appreciated. Looking at photos of Shepeprton seems to suggest it used straight on sleepering/timbering for pointwork. But finding clear photos has proven hard, so I think I'm working on the right way. Just not sure about the alignment of where sleepers/timbers should be when they overlap, I've attempted to move some and lengthen others (some should probably be made wider, but not sure atm, what width that should be (10" and 12" iirc).

EDIT: read some posts, watched some video, etc and had a further go.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

Colin Parks

Re: As yet unamed P4 small layout

Postby Colin Parks » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:02 pm

Hi Kelly,

Interesting track plan and most ingenious of you to fit everything in! Having studied the plan, two questions occur to me: Is this a single track line? How does a train access the bay platform? Perhaps reversing the trailing crossover for a facing one (at the 4-5ft mark) would help.

All the best,

Colin


Return to “Layouts and Operations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 2 guests