Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 4 Jan 2012 18:45 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi everyone Here are my first ideas for my new 0 gauge layout - which will be LSWR circa 1912. Minimum radius is generally 1200mm and I propose to run a Terrier, and probably in the future an 02 and radial tank. All comments would be gratefully received. I hope that it will not look too cramped in the very small space available? If the overall layout is OK, what about the sleepering. It does not look quite right to me, but not sure what to do to improve it. I will send the sketchboard separately Regards Arthur |
||
| Attachment: attach_1297_1764_Kingsbere_4Jan12.box 341 | |||
|
posted: 4 Jan 2012 18:46 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Here is the sketchboard to go with Kingsmere track plan Arthur |
||
| Attachment: attach_1298_1764_kingsbere_bldgs_4jan12.sk9 354 | |||
|
posted: 4 Jan 2012 20:28 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Arthur, Just my views :- 1) How do you run round a train in the platform ? 2) There is a lot of shuffling back and forward to get wagons down to the good shed and the sidings used as headshunts to do this can't also be used to contain parked wagons. 3) The space is tight for O gauge but I would be tempted to try and ease the radius of some of the turnouts and go a little more across the corner of the room rather than across and down. Regards Rob 4) The timbers can be shoved around when you have the plan right so don't worry about this at this stage. There are lots of track planning books around to give you ideas for layouts. |
||
|
posted: 5 Jan 2012 08:39 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rob Manchester wrote: 2) There is a lot of shuffling back and forward to get wagons down to the good shed and the sidings used as headshunts to do this can't also be used to contain parked wagons. There were a few ways of moving wagons around in goods yards - e.g. using pinchbars and horse power - instead of "normal" shunting with a locomotive. These methods are difficult to reproduce on a model railway layout but one other method was chain or rope shunting, where the loco pulled wagons onto other tracks. Trevor Nunn has used this method on his previous "Wicken" layout and on his present "East Lynn" layout and it is a extremely interesting method of working and can provide hours of fun. So it might be worth considering propelling a wagon down into one of the two sidings and then pulling it back into the goods shed road with a chain. Retrieval of the wagon is by normal means, using the lower of the two sidings as a headshunt for the shed road. Jim. |
||
|
posted: 5 Jan 2012 11:57 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Rob and Jim, Thanks for the suggestion of angling the layout more at a diagonal. I shall look to see how that works. The track at the very left of the plan is a traverser (in effect half a turntable - just long enough for tank engines), as there was originally at Ventnor on the IOW. That enables me to run around carriages in the platform, or to use the platform to run round a goods train in the loop. I do not mind a lot of shunting in the yard, as that justifies train movement in the station. There won't be much on the main line - it is too short! The works siding has a wagon turntable at the end (where the two tracks appear to cross), so a wagon can be pushed onto that and then the (future) works engine can pull it off into the works. In practice I shall probably use the works part of the layout more as a static area. I would love to use rope shunting - I just need to work out how to attach a horse and rope to the wagon?? I did consider curving the works siding round to allow room for a point, but I decided that I would end up with all track and I wanted to have at least a bit of country. Arthur |
||
|
posted: 5 Jan 2012 13:57 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Arthur, a minor point; as far as I know half-turntables are usually referred to as sector-plates. Pretty uncommon, as they don't have the advantage of full turntables in being able to balance things over the pivot point. Traversers are parallel tracks laid on a movable table; this was the sort found at Birmingham Moor Street, Swindon works, and now at Didcot. Cheers Nigel |
||
|
posted: 5 Jan 2012 15:59 from: Stephen Freeman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi, Just had a look at the box file - if you are worried about the minimum radii remember that given your period it would be unlikely that REA specs would be in use so you could have a bit of an experiment with customising the vees, for instance using curviform throughout appears to give a useful increase at the possible expense of being less prototypical in some cases, I haven't tried out the other possibilities though, they may be better or worse. |
||
|
posted: 5 Jan 2012 16:15 from: Raymond
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Nigel Brown wrote: Arthur, a minor point; as far as I know half-turntables are usually referred to as sector-plates. Pretty uncommon, as they don't have the advantage of full turntables in being able to balance things over the pivot point. Traversers are parallel tracks laid on a movable table; this was the sort found at Birmingham Moor Street, Swindon works, and now at Didcot. There was at least one sector plate at Snow Hill for a set of bay platforms. Regards Raymond |
||
|
posted: 5 Jan 2012 16:57 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Nigel, Thanks for the comments. I wondered if I had got the wrong name for the half turntable and thanks for putting me right. I remember the big traverser at Eastleigh, which I think was used for moving coaches around the works. Stephen - if I went for curved V's, are you able to supply these as part of your crossing assembly, or would I need to bend them myself, as I think that it would not be easy to do this after the crossing had been constructed. Raymond - I looked on the web and the one at Snowhill is weird with three roads so that you could never drive off any of the 3 approach roads and into the pit. Unfortunately I could not find a photo, although I do have a scan of a photo of the Ventnor one. Regards, Arthur |
||
|
posted: 5 Jan 2012 18:42 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
LSWRArt wrote: I looked on the web and the one at Snowhill is weird with three roads so that you could never drive off any of the 3 approach roads and into the pit. Unfortunately I could not find a photo, although I do have a scan of a photo of the Ventnor one.In the case of running lines that would, or should, be essential. The traverser at Moor street had an extra road in excess of the running roads; I believe there were just two platform roads (not 100% sure) but three roads on the traverser. The platforms were constructed so that the extra road could slide underneath, again to avoid having an open pit. I've seen a picture somewhere of the arrangement. Cheers Nigel |
||
|
posted: 5 Jan 2012 18:56 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Correction; it seems there were two traversers at Moor Street, the first as described above, the second serving a platform road and runround loop. There's picture of the second about 1/3 of the way down:- http://www.robertdarlaston.co.uk/Railways50yr.htm with a locomotive in the process of being shifted to the left. |
||
|
posted: 5 Jan 2012 20:24 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Nigel What a great collection of photos. I shall spend some time studying them. I checked on what i had on the IOW. I do not have a photo of Ventnor with the sector plate - only after it was changed to a Y-point to cope with the larger 02 tanks. I cannot find any photos of Ventnor before 1923 when the turntable or sector plate was probably replaced. It was Bembridge which kept its sector plate and contrary to what I said earlier, this appears to really be a turntable, although it is said that it was never used to turn a loco. There was a good photo of this on fotopic, which site no longer works, but there is a different one at http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bembridge/index18.shtml This doesn't have a second set of rails, but there is a wooden platform filling the hole and I guess the turntable was usually returned to the platform road immediately after use. Thanks again for the interesting photos Arthur |
||
|
posted: 6 Jan 2012 09:03 from: Stephen Freeman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi, Yes Stephen LSWRArt wrote: Nigel, Thanks for the comments. |
||
|
posted: 8 Jan 2012 18:15 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi everyone Thanks to your input, I have now revised Kingsbere by slightly angling it, changing some of the points to curviform and reversing the road to the goods shed. There is a lot of track in a small space, but what else can I do in this much room and still give some operational interest (apart from changing to S4 / S2... and I prefer the mass of 0 gauge stock). Anyway, do you think this looks any better? Any further comments / suggestions before I start shoving timbers? I will again send the sketchboard with the buildings separately. Thanks Arthur |
||
| Attachment: attach_1304_1764_Kingsbere_reversed_goods_shed_v4_8Jan12.box 271 | |||
|
posted: 8 Jan 2012 18:34 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Here is the revised sketchboard. Arthur |
||
| Attachment: attach_1305_1764_kingsbere_bldgs_reversed_v4_8jan12.sk9 253 | |||
|
posted: 13 Jan 2012 00:27 from: Simon Dunkley
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
LSWRArt wrote:Although it looks like a turntable, it was really a centre-pivoted sector plate. Or alternatively, a turntable with a restricted swing! If they had turned locos at Bembridge, then when they got back to Brading, they might have noticed the absence of a turntable there! Ventnor was similarly operated: I have seen at least one photo, probably in the A4 (or so) sized photo album produced by OPC. The table there was almost certainly too short for the O2s, etc, and replacing it with P&C was probably a simpler option. You might want to try this link for an image, at least of the fence around it and the tracks radiating from it. |
||
|
posted: 13 Jan 2012 09:49 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Simon Thanks for that very interesting photo. Lots of really good information throughout the photo and I can now see that the sector plate served three roads, so they could run round in the yard without using the platform road. All the best Arthur |
||
| Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so. |