A 'loop' Shunting Puzzle on a 5 foot long board.

[Dad-1]

I don't normally post anything in this section, going straight into 'Under Construction', but this
time I want to get some thoughts down on paper so to speak.

This will be a low cost production, mainly because I have loads of stuff here already that I need
to use up. There will however be some limitations. Firstly the actual base board will be a main side
of a dismantled book case. These sides measure a little under 6 feet - Ahh sorry I think & work in
Imperial measurements, that comes with being in my 80's.

I have already made a loop shunting puzzle and the failings with that have been the use of standard
insulated Set-track points and squeezing in shortened above track Kadee magnets. The problem with
insulated frog points is the inability of most small 0-4-0 and many 0-6-0's to run reliably through them
at a very low speed. Stalls ruin the project !! The kadee above sleeper magnets were cut in half and
even the smallest locomotives were still in the turn making it impossible to work a single wagon from
the point, it was possible to remove a wagon from a wagon, but an annoying restriction.

The plan is to work on a 5 foot board, 60 inches in place of the 50 inches on the existing loop puzzle.
The most interesting thing will be using home made points. I have last year made up 2 complete one
piece crossovers to Peco set-track geometry. These made with code 75 bull-head rail on soldered
copper-clad sleepering. A video of some running on one of these is in my Work Bench thread.

This planned project will use non-standard track spacing, previously I have used imprints of both Peco
Streamline and Set-track geometry as my standards. This will need some drawings. Why take this path ?
The board I'm using will take 3 lines and using Set-track will take up too much width, whereas Streamline
will seem to cramped.
I shall complicate matters by using hidden under track magnets to improve the visual effects. Having
done that on both my clubs West Bay layout and my HSII shunting layout I know it takes some very
accurate work to get the standard of automation that I'm looking for.

I'm very luck in as much as I have here around 30 yards of loose bull-head rail and I hope sufficient copper-
clad sleepering. While I have loads of SMP flexi track I'm thinking of making 100% of the track myself, that
may change depending on the exact track formations I intend to go for and how I connect into that 3rd line.

I will probably have to re-visit my thoughts here as I progress towards a start, not today, but saw to board this
coming Christmas week.

Geoff T.

[Dad-1]

O.K some more about the plan.
Using such thin sleepers as you get from Copper-clad and if use it SMP flexi you need to use very fine ballasts
and to go with that the track is best raised slightly. This is normally done through adding a thin cork layer, On
my sample piece I tried a thin card, which has not been trouble free as it ripples up when soaked during ballasting,
it's not caused big problems, but why take the risk. What I don't have here is cork !!

Another thing not mentioned is operating the points. As this will be a narrow shelf type of board with very little space
underneath for any point motors I will change all points by mechanical rods activated from the front. The frog switching
will initially be by frog juicers, These can however cause problems with very slow and light locomotives, but any signs
of problems and I'll return to mechanical switches activated by the point changing rods.

I've spent some time trying to draw a crossover using a set-track curve, but reducing the distance between the adjoining
lines. It may become easier to build another standard set-track crossover to match the spare I have already. Perhaps making
a double crossover as one piece is a step too far.

Geoff T.

[Bigmet]

...I've spent some time trying to draw a crossover using a set-track curve, but reducing the distance between the adjoining
lines. It may become easier to build another standard set-track crossover to match the spare I have already. Perhaps making
a double crossover as one piece is a step too far.

Your hand built set track geometry crossover looks very well, and 'the same again' based on more closely spaced track will look yet better; as within the same overall length you have choices of reducing the crossing angle, and having a straighter road between the two crossings.

What's does the double crossover describe? Is it one followed immediately by another? if it's that, definitely build as two separate pieces.

[Dad-1]

Hi Bigmet,

That's exactly what it is, a leading crossover adjacent to a trailing crossover. This to replicate the
loop as on Derry's Yard which is an essential part of the driving puzzle where you have sidings each
side of the crossovers so some wagons have to pass through the loop to be able to ease into the right
siding. If that makes sense ?
My thinking is that as a one piece containing in effect 4 points it would simplify any wiring due to that
huge raft of live copper-clad sleepers. 4 lots of switched common crossings is no more awkward than
having to do the same as two separate pieces. One yard of bull-head is more than enough for the outer
most stock rails, that in my thinking will tie the whole thing together nicely ?

You obviously have concerns, any serious reasons other than ease of handling ?

I'm still torn on the idea of building directly onto the base. The disadvantage there will be working on a
60" plank !! Still the drawing is almost halfway there. Slow because I'm drawing in every sleeper to get
matching measurements using 3 locating lines, one dead centre, the two others running through each
crossover centre. I was never a draughts man and GCE '0' level art from1958 isn't much help !!

It's a challenge and fun, working things out as I go. I've already had second thoughts about making straight
track when I have several boxes of SMP laying in the loft.

Geoff T.

[Dad-1]

I've done the drawing and have a problem, Bigmet may be right, I may have to
do as separate crossovers. The reason is that by reducing the separation of tracks
I have reduced the length between the points within the loop. I need slightly less
than the space for 4 wagons, but the drawing reveals that getting just 3 in is too tight.

I can either cut the drawing and insert an additional short straight infill and make in
one piece as per my original thinking, or make as two free standing sections. This shows
why it's A very good reason for having detailed and accurate drawings.
Here are my Blue Prints - well I did use a blue marker to highlight where all the sleepers
have to be laid.



The modification is to reduce the track separation, Set-track rail to rail gives 50 mm, I've
reduced mine to 40 mm, Streamline is around 33 mm. In the real world sidings vary widely
and mixing them up helps individuality.

A long way to go.

Geoff T.

[Dad-1]

The loop has had to be extended slightly to allow for another point to be fitted
within the loop to link into a third rail.
Here is the full length board on which I'm currently cutting and laying out sleepers
for one crossover. I had originally intended building the double crossovers as a one
piece construction, but now will have as two separate sections.

I think the main Track Building work need to be included in my Workbench thread.



A nice job for winter

Geoff T.