Video Archive         Recent Topics      
YMR logo

You are here:  Your Model Railway Club > Model Railway Layouts. > Members Personal Layouts. > Latton Street To bottom of page
                 

 Moderated by: Spurno Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
Start New Topic Reply Printer Friendly

Latton Street - Members Personal Layouts. - Model Railway Layouts. - Your Model Railway Club
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Aug 12th, 2017 11:10 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 1st post
Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3306
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

I’ve spent months deciding which wall the new layout would sit against.

I finally decided that the back wall, (left side of the plan below) was best, as although it meant the layout was a bit shorter it’s got more light as there is a fluorescent tube directly above, and the layout can sit back against the wall which it can’t where Latton Fields was situated, because of the gas pipe.

The blue outline is the current/old base boards and the new layout boards will sit on top.



I’m going to try cassettes for storage, as although my back problem prevents lifting too much, I should be able to just slide them around on the old base board, which effectively becomes a cassette table.



The track plan is just another version of the late Cyril Freezer’s Minories track plan with a three way point. Hence my ‘Thoughts on Minories’ thread a few months ago.

As before, the black line/left hand side of the road bridge is the join between the two boards.



The brown block on the road is where I’ve been measuring up some Scalescenes low relief flats.

The 3D views show the station building suspended in mid-air above the end of the tracks with the entrance onto the road that runs along the back, but that may change to just a facade at the end of the tracks, or something low relief elsewhere.







I’ve salvaged all the electrofrog points and a lot of the track from Latton Fields, so track work will be code 100 and theoretically I only need to buy a Peco SL-E99 three-way point and one L/H SL-E92.

I’m moving away from WIT and rods for point control and this time it will be solenoid point motors and DCC control. It seems sensible to get two Peco PL-10 motors for the three-way point as they will clip to it and avoid any alignment problems. I might try Seeps for the others but motor size will be a consideration, as the distance below the board is only the height of the battening of the new boards sitting on top of the old.

I also hoping all the points and necessary electronics will fit as planned on one board, which will cut down on the plugs necessary for wiring to cross the boards.

Available time and funds are going to make this a very slow build, but I’m not in a hurry and I’d prefer to get this all working as I want, and not use cheaper alternatives just to get the layout operational.

More as and when it happens.



Ed



____________________
Engineers just love to change things
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Sat Aug 12th, 2017 08:49 pm
PMQuoteReply
link to this 2nd post
John Dew
Full Member


Joined: Tue Dec 1st, 2009
Location: North Vancouver, British Columbia Canada
Posts: 3295
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Hi Ed
Talk about boldness be my friend! I am lost in admiration particularly after all the work you put into Latton Fields.

I have always thought that the Minories track plan looked very attractive with lots of operating potential.

Couple of thoughts:

Is there any conceivable way you can avoid using a three way point? I found the peco code 100 3 ways to be a total pain. I had two on Granby......You may recall I ripped one up last fall.........I keep glaring at the remaining one trying to work out how to get rid of it! I am not alone in disliking them.....there was a thread on RM web a few months back.

It occupies such a pivotal position on your layout it would be a shame if you were plagued with the derailments and uncertain operation that I suffer from.

Secondly are the other turnouts insulfrog or electrofrog......if the latter I wondered how you would switch polarity?

Love the plan though....will watch its development with interest 

Cheers

John




____________________
John
Granby III
Lenz DCC ,RR&Co Gold V9.0 A2 Windows 10
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Sun Aug 13th, 2017 07:08 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 3rd post
Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3306
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

It's space constraints John, as usual I'm trying to get a quart into a pint pot.

The right hand board is roughly 3' 10" and having a curved entry for the fiddle yard cassettes, also cuts the available space down.

Using a cross over instead of a 3-way reduces the platform lengths, not just for the extra length of a cross over but also having to avoid points over the base boards join.

I've seen a few threads where people have had problems with the 3-way, but I'm hoping that as long as I lay it dead flat I'll be lucky with modern diesel/electric stock.

Just hope for the best, fingers crossed.

All the points will be electrofrog and if I use Seep PM-1s I can use the accessory switch for the frog.

The 3-way with two Peco PL-10s will be a bit different as I'm not a fan of the PL-13 accessory switch, so I'm going to try a couple of Gaugemaster DCC80 autofrogs.


Ed



____________________
Engineers just love to change things
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Mon Aug 14th, 2017 02:30 pm
PMQuoteReply
link to this 4th post
John Dew
Full Member


Joined: Tue Dec 1st, 2009
Location: North Vancouver, British Columbia Canada
Posts: 3295
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

I was afraid that would be the case:cry:......I wish you luck and will be interested to see how you get on. I am certain you are correct about the importance of the turnout being laid absolutely level.........I would add that the four sections of track joining must be equally level and be dead straight after the point for at least 3".............how do I know this?:oops::oops:
Now I have learned all this I am almost tempted to try the 3 way again rather than have it sitting at the bottom of a drawer:roll::lol:


I share your distrust/dislike of Peco micro switches.....hence the question!


Good luck with the layout 


:cheers



John



____________________
John
Granby III
Lenz DCC ,RR&Co Gold V9.0 A2 Windows 10
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Mon Aug 14th, 2017 03:39 pm
PMQuoteReply
link to this 5th post
Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3306
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Thanks John.

Still trying to find some time to work on the base boards, so I don't expect to  start laying any track for a few weeks.

Probably start by laying the 3 way and work out each way from there.



Ed



____________________
Engineers just love to change things
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Wed Aug 16th, 2017 10:52 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 6th post
Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3306
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Been thinking about your comments John and the problems you've had with 3 way points on Granby.

I was just about to order the 3 way point yesterday and as I don't want to build a potential problem into the layout before I've even started, I thought I'd do some more investigation.

There are quite a lot of posts on various forums regarding derailing when turning left from the toe, and also possibly having to move the switch blades in the correct order when setting the road, or both sets of switch blades will be trying to be moved by one point motor.

Interesting posts on cs.trains.com (Model Railroader), where people have resorted to filing the end of one of the switch blades amongst other things.

Therefore thought last night it might be a good idea to see if I could replace the three way with two points, without shrinking the layout too much and I came up with this.



It does mean moving the Y point on to the left hand board and makes the head shunt slightly shorter, but the platform lengths are more or less the same.

Also makes positioning the supporting batten under the middle board (as indicated) without fouling any point motors, a bit easier.

Think this may be a safer option and two points are cheaper than a 3 -way.


Ed






____________________
Engineers just love to change things
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Wed Aug 16th, 2017 05:28 pm
PMQuoteReply
link to this 7th post
John Dew
Full Member


Joined: Tue Dec 1st, 2009
Location: North Vancouver, British Columbia Canada
Posts: 3295
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Hi Ed

That is exactly what I was thinking of .......I didnt feel confident enough about the space constraints to suggest it in my post. I am sure you have made the right decision.

I think the problem with the code 100 three way relates to the geometry.......when switching to the centre the smaller rear blade puts noticeable pressure on the longer blade. A very experienced modeller on RMweb used a code 75 three way which is more asymetrical to overcome the problem.

Look forward to seeing developments

Cheers

John



____________________
John
Granby III
Lenz DCC ,RR&Co Gold V9.0 A2 Windows 10
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Wed Aug 16th, 2017 09:36 pm
PMQuoteReply
link to this 8th post
Barry Miltenburg
Full Member


Joined: Wed Jan 18th, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Hi Ed

I agee regarding the Code 75 3-way.  I have had one on my Yarslow layout for 5 years, sited at the end of the main line crossover and at the start of the goods yard.  The only problem I have experienced is with the Peco switchgear that sits on top of the point motor.  The little sliding brass contact is poor really.

For my new layout (and the eventual monster layout - see thread "going large") I will use Seeps with the built in switch as you have suggested, quite soundly IMHO.  I find them trickier to install but far more reliable.  There are some good vids on YT suggesting that you centre the blades of the turnout with plastic strip and then fix the Seep in place whilst the operating pin is centred.  It works well!!

I like the changes you made to your plan to open out the throat.  My Going Large layout also features a Minories derivative - its a plan I like so I watch your progress with interest.

Barry

Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Wed Aug 16th, 2017 09:49 pm
PMQuoteReply
link to this 9th post
Sol
A modelling Moderator.


Joined: Mon Nov 28th, 2011
Location: Evanston Gardens, South Aust, Australia
Posts: 3355
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Code 100 3 way is not ideal for manual operation but solenoids & diode matrix (***) so the blades can be moved without causing the problem that John refers to.
Yes,I have used a code 75 turnout and solder fishplates to code 100 track - half of the fishplate on the code 100, flatten the other half and sit Code 75 on top and solder that rail.

(***) a similar process can be used for Tortoise type motors.



____________________
Ron
NCE DCC ; 00 scale UK outline.
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Thu Aug 17th, 2017 09:08 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 10th post
SRman
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 10th, 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2313
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

That looks very similar to what I did for my old layout. I added a double slip at the station throat to lead to the turntable and engine shed without having to shunt locos into the goods sidings.






It was a good layout to operate. I did the terminus as a truncated through line, to allow for possible future expansion - the premise was that Beeching had cut the line back to Middlehurst (as I called it). I also added a crossover to act as an engine release at the terminal end of the double tracks in the platform area. This is only just visible between the two trains.

Sorry for the poor quality of the photos - they date from the days when I had a 1 megapixel digital camera!



____________________
Jeff Lynn,
Amateur layabout, Professional Lurker, Thread hijacker extraordinaire
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Thu Aug 17th, 2017 10:22 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 11th post
Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3306
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Still haven't decided what the three sidings will be yet Jeff.

DMU storage, maintenance/breakdown train storage, carriage sidings, or maybe find an excuse for a few short freight operations.



Ed



____________________
Engineers just love to change things
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Thu Aug 17th, 2017 10:51 pm
PMQuoteReply
link to this 12th post
SRman
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 10th, 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2313
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Ed, those sidings could be used for different purposes at different times if you want to add some variety to your operations.

The one thing I will say that didn't work so well with the mirror-imaging of the track plan was that parcels bay (on the right in your plans above) needs a double shuffle to get trains out onto the correct main line track. In the original Minories plan, the train would have had to be shunted in after arrival in one of the main platforms. My version had a double track leading in and out with a headshunt line parallel to those, so varied that little bit from your plan. If you are using it asa single track line, then this ceases to be a problem anyway.

I have to say that this track plan gave me much pleasure and was able to be operated as a terminus to fiddle yard or as a shuttle to my other station, or as through services onto the double track main circuit I had at that time. I had the option of running locos around terminating trains or releasing the train loco and backing another one on, fresh from the engine shed.



____________________
Jeff Lynn,
Amateur layabout, Professional Lurker, Thread hijacker extraordinaire
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Mon Aug 21st, 2017 11:06 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 13th post
Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3306
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Just a boring woodwork picture, put I thought I'd post it at it shows what I thought was level three years ago wasn't :oops:



There's 12mm of MDF packing under the right hand side of the middle baseboard where the spirit level is.

Didn't help in that I hadn't put enough bracing under the old board either, so it sags. Double :oops: :oops:

I'll have to put packing under that small right hand board that comes around the corner as well, but just shows you can't skimp on the baseboard construction.

Also proves I've learned something being on these forums :)


Ed



____________________
Engineers just love to change things
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Wed Aug 23rd, 2017 07:43 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 14th post
TeaselBay
Novice
 

Joined: Fri Aug 4th, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 18
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Wow Ed your planning is brilliant.  I mainly went with laying old track and trial and error to see what I can fit.  
Looking forwards to following your progress.



____________________
Teasel Bay: http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=15131&forum_id=21

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TeaselBay
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Wed Aug 23rd, 2017 07:46 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 15th post
Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3306
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Thanks Chris, I'm still tweaking the track plan as I've just realised I need a catch point .


Ed



____________________
Engineers just love to change things
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Wed Aug 23rd, 2017 08:48 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 16th post
SRman
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 10th, 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2313
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

I put a dummy catch point on the parcels road, visible on the far side of the tracks in the second pic. All it was was a piece of rail filed to a point with some sleeper end off-cuts leading off to the right (at least, to the right in the photo). As I was never actually going to use it, I figured the simulation of it was sufficient for my needs ... and cheaper than buying one!



____________________
Jeff Lynn,
Amateur layabout, Professional Lurker, Thread hijacker extraordinaire
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Wed Aug 23rd, 2017 09:39 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 17th post
Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3306
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

I see it Jeff, over by the containers.

I did have a go at making one on the old layout ages ago, but it wasn't very successful.

Think I need a SL-84 and since this time I've actually remembered before laying all the track (and considering what point motors etc. are going to cost), I might just buy one as they're only £8.50.

Don't plan to make it operational, purely cosmetic.


Ed


Think this is right.






____________________
Engineers just love to change things
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Thu Aug 24th, 2017 08:36 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 18th post
new04db
Lurking Around the Forum


Joined: Sun Jan 13th, 2013
Location: Cheltenham, United Kingdom
Posts: 393
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Hi Ed,
To avoid everything being lined up/perpendicular in regards to the railway and scenic's, Might be worth having the bridges at an angle with the back board.

  



____________________
Kind Regards

Aaron

Kingsmead Station

©Aaron C. New
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Thu Aug 24th, 2017 08:46 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 19th post
Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3306
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

Good point Aaron, I'll look in to that.

There's a reason why the platforms are dead straight though, as opposed to a slight curve or even the reverse curves in the original Minories.


Ed
 



____________________
Engineers just love to change things
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

 Posted: Sun Aug 27th, 2017 09:18 am
PMQuoteReply
link to this 20th post
Ed
Full Member


Joined: Tue Jan 29th, 2013
Location: West Anglia Main Line, United Kingdom
Posts: 3306
Status: 
Offline

My photos:
view photos in Gallery
view photos as slides

While waiting for the paint to dry on the baseboards I revisited another version I did a while back with four platforms, and also moved the road bridge onto the left hand board and set it at an angle as suggested.




Disadvantages are, I've shorted the head shunt by about 80mm and the top platform is a bit short.

:hmm



Ed







____________________
Engineers just love to change things
Back To Top PMQuoteReply

This is topic ID = 15109     Current time is 04:58 pm Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page    
You are here:  Your Model Railway Club > Model Railway Layouts. > Members Personal Layouts. > Latton Street
You can type a quick reply to this topic here. Click in the box below to begin.

Or to reply to an individual post, or to include images, attachments and formatted text,
click the Quote or Reply buttons on each post above.

To start a new topic in this forum, click the Start New Topic button below.
To start a new topic in a different forum, click the Forum Jump drop-down list below.
Start New Topic


Back to top of page

           
15 Most Recent Topics

Problems with this web site? Please contact the Webmaster.

All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted.
Unless stated otherwise, all the material displayed on this web site, including all text, photographs, drawings and other images, is copyright and the property of the respective contributor. Registered members are welcome to use it for their own personal non-commercial modelmaking purposes. It must not be reproduced or re-published elsewhere in any form, or used commercially, without first obtaining the owner's express permission.
The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason.    © 2008

                 

Recent Topics Back to top of page

Powered by UltraBB 1.15 Copyright © 2007-2011 by Jim Hale and Data 1 Systems. Page design copyright © 2008-2013 Martin Wynne. Photo gallery copyright © 2009 David Williams.