00 6' x 5' for father and son

Post your design ideas for any layout that you are planning to build in the future. Keep members up-to-date with your designs and future plans for your layout.
aforsyth
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:30 pm
Location: Chippenham, Wiltshire
Contact:

Re: 00 6' x 5' for father and son

Postby aforsyth » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:11 pm

Thank you pete12345 - yes, you're right. Plan 2 does make more sense from that point of view. The left-hand side of the layout will indeed have some space (perhaps 12-18 inches!) between it and the wall, and I will most likely leave some access open to the storage tracks there, since this isn't a viewing side.
So it seems you don't see a loss of operating potential on plan 2, but rather a more sensible layout of the branch? I suppose the attraction of plan 1 was the fact you could have a branch train either terminate at the main station after arriving from the upper level terminus, or continue on to 'the rest of the branch' (or secondary line), via the storage yard. Probably not very realistic, though.

Again thank you - that's very helpful.

Alan

User avatar
pete12345
Posts: 959
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:53 pm
Location: Coventry

Re: 00 6' x 5' for father and son

Postby pete12345 » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:51 pm

I'd say that it would be more realistic to have the branch train join the main line if its destination was further along, perhaps separating off again at another junction station. Particularly in this case where the branch line is short, it would have been built as a spur off the main line to serve a specific purpose. Platforms 3 and 4 and the junction sidings would serve as an interchange between the branch and the main.
Once an engine attached to a train, was afraid of a few drops of rain...

User avatar
Dragonfly
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:49 am
Location: Stoke on Trent
Contact:

Re: 00 6' x 5' for father and son

Postby Dragonfly » Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:17 pm

I would point out the advantage of Plan 1 in that you can run around the "branch" train in the station without going on to the main line (assuming that storage line track is for branch use at the time). This means you can have 2 trains running along the main lines without having to stop one while you shunt (if you use 3 controllers).

The branch terminus looks longer in Plan 2, but the line doesn't approach it from much further along. Perhaps flip the branch terminus's layout and apply it on to Plan 1..?

In practice I doubt you'd be too bothered about using Platform 4 for main line traffic. Platforms 1 and 2 for main line, 3 for either, and 4 for branch only seems reasonable.

aforsyth
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:30 pm
Location: Chippenham, Wiltshire
Contact:

Re: 00 6' x 5' for father and son

Postby aforsyth » Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:45 pm

Pete12345 - thanks, that makes sense. A great scenario for a layout with more space!

Dragonfly - you're right. I hadn't noticed the issue with having to run round a branch train partially on the mainline on Plan 2. A headshunt at the signalbox via doubleslip would be nice, but may not fit the alignment there. I'll have to fiddle around a bit - that would be an annoying problem with two mainline trains running and a third performing shunting / goods duties on the branchline.

Alan

aforsyth
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:30 pm
Location: Chippenham, Wiltshire
Contact:

Re: 00 6' x 5' for father and son

Postby aforsyth » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:20 am

So - based on Dragonfly's observation for Plan 2, I've updated it to squeeze in a headshunt. The main platforms (1 & 2) are narrower on the left-hand side and the outer mainline loop is slightly closer to the baseboard edge, which is not ideal, but I can probably adjust this slightly during track laying.

For ease of reference, here is Plan 1 again (unmodified - not sure which upper level version I like best, so leaving it for now), followed by the updated Plan 2:

Plan 1

Image

Modified Plan 2

Image

I am still not sure which I prefer. Plan 2 is now more complicated, but as pete12345 mentioned, makes more sense in terms of logical layout. I'm also slightly concerned about the curved points. The latest Peco setrack types I've bought seem a lot better than those from years ago, but both plans depend on their reliable operation, so I'll have to set up a simple double oval with curved crossover in the next few days and try out my rolling stock on them. I have mostly diesels, but there are 0-4-0 'trainset' locos as well, together with a Hornby castle.

Anyway, all comments are still most welcome!

Thanks,
Alan

Edit: small update to plan 2.

aforsyth
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:30 pm
Location: Chippenham, Wiltshire
Contact:

Re: 00 6' x 5' for father and son

Postby aforsyth » Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:14 am

I've just run the DC curved setrack point test this evening, with facing and trailing crossovers on ovals of second and third radius,' along with a new lefthand 'straight' Hornby point. The curved points are the latest Peco (ST-244 / ST-245), and I tested them with some 'troublesome trucks' that often derail and small locos.

The Hornby 0-4-0 tank was ok at fairly slow speed over them. It did stop on the frog of a point occasionally (and seemingly randomly), but this is more likely to be an issue with its pickups that I've noticed. There were no derailments over the points at all by trucks or locos.

I also ran a Bachmann 08 shunter (0-6-0) over the Peco crossovers and Hornby point at a scale walking pace, and was very impressed that it didn't stop or pause once. Should I test bogie locos and my Castle? These are DCC, so I'll need to set that up too.

The only 'gotcha' was when I tried running a recently rescued old Triang Jinty 0-6-0 on the circuit. It's fine with the Hornby point, but the Peco curved points (and perhaps their straight points too, I don't know) have frogs too narrow for the coarse wheels, so it just got stuck. However, if I have to choose, I much prefer reliable slow running of more recent rolling stock to being able to run old locos!

As a matter of interest, does anyone know whether the latest Hornby curved points (R8074 / R8075) have slightly wider frogs to allow older coarser rolling stock to run over them? Looking at pics on Google, the latest seem the same as the Peco ones I have.

In conclusion, I am very relieved that the Peco curved points have proved their worth, so I'll continue to feature them heavily in my final layout plan.

User avatar
pete12345
Posts: 959
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:53 pm
Location: Coventry

Re: 00 6' x 5' for father and son

Postby pete12345 » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:12 am

You might find that the wheels on the older stock are too close together, and are binding on the check rail and wing rail of the points. If this is the case, you may be able to adjust the wheels outwards very slightly. If not, or if it's the flanges, replacing the wheels with newer hornby ones may be an option. Set track usually has quite loose tolerances for flange thickness though.
Once an engine attached to a train, was afraid of a few drops of rain...

Kentishman
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:02 pm

Re: 00 6' x 5' for father and son

Postby Kentishman » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:19 pm

I think that plan 2 has more potential. This would give you the option of running a shuttle service on the branch into platform 3 (counting platforms from the outside inward) while shunting the sidings using the inside line / platform 4. All that you would need to do is provide the platform 3 line with a separate switch and power feed to that for platform 4. Include on this platform 3 feed the power feed to between the two points at the top where the branchline and that from the storage line join and then split to platform 3 or 4. If you then put in an isolating switch for the platform 3 rails but not these points, you could hold a branchline train on platform 3 while bringing a goods train through the points to, or from, platform 4 and storage using just one controller. Have I made this over complicated? I know what I mean, but does it make sense to anyone else?
KM

User avatar
pete12345
Posts: 959
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:53 pm
Location: Coventry

Re: 00 6' x 5' for father and son

Postby pete12345 » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:30 pm

I think the way to go for DC wiring is to have lots of sections. Each platform for example should be a separate section. With DPDT switches on the track plan you'd connect them to whichever controller you needed. It's on a layout of this complexity however that DCC would be highly useful. With lots of trains in a small area, it would considerably simplify both wiring and control. I think it's easier for kids to grasp too, as they just have to know what number a loco is rather than worry about switching power.
Once an engine attached to a train, was afraid of a few drops of rain...


Return to “Personal Layouts - Planning”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests