Petermac's Railway

[user=1338]Ed[/user] wrote:

Autocoach comes to mind,  but I think they were mainly on the Green Wet and Rusty.


Ed

Yep, another good idea from the GWR  :pathead

 :doublethumb

Bill

[user=1814]Longchap[/user] wrote:

[user=1338]Ed[/user] wrote:

Autocoach comes to mind,  but I think they were mainly on the Green Wet and Rusty.


Ed

Yep, another good idea from the GWR  :pathead

:doublethumb

Bill

I suspect the chance of a conversion at this late stage is remote Bill :lol:

The LMS had pull push and Peter dug out a photo of LNER pull push and if I recall he has a rather nice DMU  as well …..so all is not lost

Cheers

John

[user=6]Petermac[/user] wrote:

Yes John, the through route is on the right.  Both through routes  will be side by side in the centre with the sidings on the outside.

For the "down" side, I'm thinking of using a single slip on the centre track for the crossovers - it would save space and, as I have one in stock, avoid buying 2 more points !!

Track spacing is one advantage of a re-build John - I had them far too close together on Maxmill I.  I ensured I didn't repeat that mistake plus here, I will need to reach underneath the upper level to access them so spacing was important.

Regarding moving the turntable - alas, it won't be to bring all the loco facilities to one place - there simply isn't room.  My re-thinking was triggered when I realised the Maxmill "show" module would be difficult to incorporate, not so much because of length but more because of lack of clearance between upper and lower levels.

If I decide to develop the upper level as a terminus branch line, I'll need somehwere to turn the locos ready for their return trip.  I could possibly move the turntable to the front left hand corner behind the door………………

On the other hand, plans for the upper level are still somewhat fluid ………………………..

I now need to order some more electrofrog points - which seems silly given that I have a whole box full of dead frog versions ………………..

Regardless of Push/Pull, I assumed the passenger locos at the branch terminus (Dougsmill?)would run around and similarly the pick up goods would return to Maxmill tender first.

The idea of the upper level branch appealed to me the moment you first mentioned it. Not only because you could incrporate Doug's Mill and make great use of that corner but also because the upper level at Maxmill would make the use of Wheregate(?) building more realistic

Some questions…..Does the upper level have to be a complete circuit and does it have to connect with the lower level? Out and back might solve a lot of issues.

I wouldnt get too hung up about the TT………..if you cant fit it in you could always sell it on ebay. Retail price right now is 345 GBP……..buy a lot of electrofrogs for even half that.

Best wishes

John









 




.

[user=434]John Dew[/user] wrote:

I suspect the chance of a conversion at this late stage is remote Bill :lol:

The LMS had pull push and Peter dug out a photo of LNER pull push and if I recall he has a rather nice DMU  as well …..so all is not lost

Cheers

John

Yes, I agree all is not lost John and I've complemented Peter on his wise choice of a Pannier, which he loves so much to have added sound. Good chap!

Looking forward to more 'Great' stock in the future.

Bill     

Upper level. That struck me as I was following along. The only issues with an upper is getting up and down. If you have a slope of say 1:25, doable for model locomotives, you need 25 feet for a 1 foot difference in level.  Going to 1:20 needs 20 feet. 18" difference is better. And then there is the issue of the door. Double lift out.

 if you can lose 3 x 3 feet in a corner that gives you enough space for a helix and a tunnel through. A 17" radius would give you almost 9 foot circumference, 4 turns 36 feet. That's about a 2.8% gradient for a foot clearance. It also gives you enough space for a runaround loop or even a wye (which doesn't have to be symetrical).


Nigel

I refuse to feel intimidated by you followers of "foreign trains" and I realise that it's really just jealousy in disguise ………….but fear not, you could all join the happy LMS/LNER band if you played your cards right ………….. :cheers


John and Bill, as the two modellers who have actually seen the unit, might recall the overall plan - the  gradient to the upper level begins at the far left corner and climbs the length of the other 3 sides arriving above itself, hopefully giving a good 6 inches clearance between upper and lower levels.  It won't continue as a circular return - just an out and back.   The upper level station will be on the left hand side of the unit above the storage roads shown previously.   Without re-checking, I can't remember the actual gradient but I think it's around 1 in 65 or 70 so not too steep.

I did consider, briefly, a helix Nigel but quickly rejected the idea.  Firstly, I just don't have the available space and secondly, the only possible site would have been at the far end of the unit where there are features of the existing layout I'd prefer to retain.

If I understand your comment correctly John, yes, the upper level will be connected to the lower level as described  above, otherwise I'd end up with 2 separate layouts, one above the other.  I'm not too sure I can see the point of that …………………. :roll: :roll:  

Further "mulling of the mind" sees the upper level as a rural branch appearing, as if by magic, through the tunnel on Doug's mill whilst the lower level will depict the industrial "Dark Satanic Mills" I love so much - those more associated with LS Lowry than William Blake………….  The existing through station - it will retain the name "Maxmill" - will become largely subterranean - similar to Birmingham New Street - the upper "street" level being the "scenic bit" thus utilising the Bradford Wheregate buildings.
 
Yes Nigel, the doorway will require a double level lift-up and at present, the plan is to have a completely lift-off removable viaduct carrying the single track gradient at the rear (closest to the door) with a lift-up flap carrying the doubled main lines on a steady curve on the lower level.  Alternatively, I could possibly have the viaduct hinging open to the right and the lower flap hinging to the left ……………all in the melting pot at present.

I take your point about tank engines and their lack of turntable requirements Bill.  Moving the turntable to the upper level was/is something I'm mulling over for two reasons - 1.  It would free up the corner where it currently resides to make space for the gradient circumnavigating the unit and
                                                2.  It would allow tender locos in particular, to turn at the branch terminus ready for their return to the lower level.

As John so rightly said, there was an LNER push-pull unit and I do have 3 versions of the 2 car DMU so turning is not an absolute essential ………….

At present, I'm just mulling over ideas like that and will listen carefully to any other incoming suggestions.

Regarding the sound fitted pannier - don't get yourselves carried away. It has nothing to do with an afinity to the GWR.  A Gaiety pannier was the very first "electric" locomotive we had as kids and we loved it !!  Our other 2 locos were, I think Graham Farish, clockwork tank locos.  All were diecast but the pannier was by far my favourite.  It would not have escaped you Bill that my pannier is a BR version rather than the "other livery" …………………….. :cool wink

Hi Petermac.  Thank you for your reply.   Slow progress? Is far superior to “All Stop “. Best wishes Kevin 

There must be an Institution Peter to where the unfortunates can go to be rid of the Greasy, Wet and Rusty syndrome!

 


It's called "Hotel Gresley" Derek - the problem is, so many want to join, there's a waiting list.

Well worth the wait Peter.

It's not the waiting list which is bothersome, it's how well they'll look after you when you get there, so I'll stick with what and who I know, generous wonderfull railwaypeople.

 .  .  .  and that can cover a great muchful of wicked goodness  :thumbs

Bill

Petermac wrote:

I refuse to feel intimidated by you followers of "foreign trains" and I realise that it's really just jealousy in disguise ………….but fear not, you could all join the happy LMS/LNER band if you played your cards right ………….. :cheers


John and Bill, as the two modellers who have actually seen the unit, might recall the overall plan - the  gradient to the upper level begins at the far left corner and climbs the length of the other 3 sides arriving above itself, hopefully giving a good 6 inches clearance between upper and lower levels.  It won't continue as a circular return - just an out and back.   The upper level station will be on the left hand side of the unit above the storage roads shown previously.   Without re-checking, I can't remember the actual gradient but I think it's around 1 in 65 or 70 so not too steep. 

I've seen too many instances recently where a yard was covered by the second level with only 6-8" of space. And without exception the builders bemoaned the fact that it was difficult to work in. And needed lights. Or a camera. Or some occupation sensors.  Your track plan calls for the through tracks in the middle. It might be worthwhile investing some time to determine an appropriate height to put a train back on the tracks. That 1 :65 is very gentle. I would try and get it higher. A 1:40 or 1:50 would give you some more height and is still prototypic. You will need transition slopes at either end as well. And going around corners will of course reduce traction significantly. Depending on what you run you may need to reduce the slope at the corners and increase on the straights.

Hotel Gresley?? Isn't that the one where you can check out anytime but never leave? 

Nigel

It's some time since I posted on here and progress, because of other things, has been very slow indeed.  In fact, I did have a spell of 3 weeks where I didn't go near my hutch !!

I am slowly trying to get something done and "electrifying" the new baseboard is the current (pun intended !) priority.

I mentioned elsewhere that all the points on this board are Electrofrog and I am using Tortoise motors.  In many ways, it's a pity I need live frogs because I now have a heap of perfectly serviceable dead frog points but experience has shown that, particularly where sound is concerned, they are just not reliable enough.

The board is a storage area with 2 outer storage tracks in each direction, each split in the middle thereby able to store 2 trains each. Any of the 8 "stored" trains (4 in each direction) can access it's own through line from whichever position it is stored in.  The centre pair of tracks are the through lines as shown here:



All the droppers are in place.  Those knots with a white wire are from the points and the black/red are track feeds. Ignore the rectangular cut outs - they're from the original track plan and are now covered by the clic-floor underlay I'm using as my track bed:
 


Before flipping the board to mount the motors, I remove the point spring and centre the switch blades by trapping a short length of dropper wire between the blades and running rails thus:




The first 2 motors in place with the 8 wires connected to choc. blocks:




I use all 8 connections because, being hidden by the upper level, it's important that I know where each point is set.  I will use LED route indicators on a mimic panel for this.

Now comes another dilemma.  Previously, the points were controlled by my Lenz 100 hand throttle via an LS 150 accessory decoder.  I'm just wondering whether it would be more sensible to use panel mounted toggle switches so that I have actual physical contact with a switch on the mimic panel rather than the remote 3 move operation required on the hand throttle ……………………………………  I know the LEDs should/will show the set route but belt and braces ???

Hi Peter
It depends on how certain you are that at some stage you will install computor control. If there is little or no chance of this then a switched mimic panel will be more convenient than relying on DCC accessory decoders….particularly LS150s with Tortoises!:roll:

When I set up RR&Co I adopted the belt and braces approach and installed mimic switch panels as well as LS150s. I used switches rather than pushbuttons so I didnt need LEDS. (Could that work for you?)

 The panels quickly became redundant……if I am operating manually I use the computor screen to set routes ….by mouse clicking on the turnout image……I rarely use the Lenz throttle……as you say it is a cumbersome process and I can rarely remember the turnout numbers!

Best wishes

John

Hi Peter - Looking very smart! Not like my spaghetti!
While I marvel at those who use computer control, and I am sure it brings a multitude of rewards, not least in some realistic and complex running, I do like a switch!  Or in my case, DCC Concepts levers.  Not cheap, I squirrelled money away over time to justify their cost, but they do look very nice and will make running the railway a little more organic.  But then my layout is basically an oval with some sidings, so it was never going to be that complex.  I have also invested in a couple of the DCC Concepts electrical wizardry components for ground signals and the mimic panel, which should reduce wiring and tie everything together.  I'm not at that point yet, so time will tell.

So each to their own, as is so often the way in this hobby:  I want to be flicking switches, turning knobs and turning lights on and off, and setting motors off, so everything will be pretty hands on.  At the moment everything is controlled by my DCC controller, but I find it slow and cumbersome, so the switches and levers will be great. (I hope).

Michael

I am a great one for controlling locos via DCC -  makes life so easy when having 4 locos on the move at the same time in my main station but all signals  &  turnouts are either manual or solenoids from panels.
I mean an engine driver doesn't set his own signals, etc from the cab !!!

Very true!  Although the way things are going, that may not be true for long!
Michael

Thanks for the input guys.

John - in all honesty, I can't see me installing RR & Co in the near future.  Given the time it has taken me to lay a couple of points, I'll probably be well into my dotage by the time I get the track laid so, adding the complexity of computer control to it all at this stage would be foolhardy I think.

I was already leaning toward separating point control from train control.  As you say Sol, the driver doesn't usually set his own route and separating the two functions is therefore logical.  On the old Maxmill, I did have occasions where I forgot to go through the 3 functions required to set points and inadvertently, triggered some other action resulting in passengers missing their connections …………….. :roll: :lol:

Additionally, I'm a bit like Michael in that I like switches, dials, bells, whistles and flashing lights on my flight deck.

 I also have a Megapoints servo control system sitting in a box.  I bought it in a rush of enthusiasm, essentially because I liked the semaphore signal bounce it offered but have only tried it for point control thus far.  It wasn't cheap and works well although I'm not sure how, or even if, I could link it up to a DCC accessory decoder.

Hi Peter,

I'm watching your progress with interest, as I will be following in your footsteps and am even more out of date than you seem to think you are. My last proper layout had manual wire coat hanger point rodding and it actually worked very well and was bullet proof.

This time, I'll also be driving the locos with my DCC throttle and with an independant system of slow motion point activators with switched panel control. I seem to recal looking at frog juicers for polarity switching, but need to catch up on latest thinking.

Bon courage with your storage sidings and completing the trackwork at the doorway end and I look forward to seeing your progress next time I visit my buddy east of Bergerac.

Best,

Bill

 

Petermac wrote: 

Thanks for the input guys.

John - in all honesty, I can't see me installing RR & Co in the near future.  Given the time it has taken me to lay a couple of points, I'll probably be well into my dotage by the time I get the track laid so, adding the complexity of computer control to it all at this stage would be foolhardy I think.

I was already leaning toward separating point control from train control.  As you say Sol, the driver doesn't usually set his own route and separating the two functions is therefore logical.  On the old Maxmill, I did have occasions where I forgot to go through the 3 functions required to set points and inadvertently, triggered some other action resulting in passengers missing their connections …………….. :roll: :lol:

Additionally, I'm a bit like Michael in that I like switches, dials, bells, whistles and flashing lights on my flight deck. 

I also have a Megapoints servo control system sitting in a box.  I bought it in a rush of enthusiasm, essentially because I liked the semaphore signal bounce it offered but have only tried it for point control thus far.  It wasn't cheap and works well although I'm not sure how, or even if, I could link it up to a DCC accessory decoder.

Glad to help Peter…… I sensed you were getting a bit undecided

Regarding the Megapoints System……what model do you have………can it handle both solenoid and stall (tortoise) Motors?

I had a quick glance at the web site and they do offer DCC add ons but If you use DCC solely for train control and operate points and signals separately from a different bus not sure why you would need it.

Best wishes

John