|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 3 May 2017 10:28 from: Josh C click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Good Morning All, I thought I would share with you a little project I have been scheming for a while behind the scenes. Some of you may have seen my recent thread in regards to a larger 7mm layout I am working on with a friend, but I am also working on a smaller project that I could set up within the size limitations I have at home (8ft x 2ft 6). I have frequently been playing around with this plan and I think I am nearly in a position to start printing it out and perhaps having a go at building it. However, over the last couple of days I have had some concern over the 3 way tandem turnout and whether or not the switches were to close. I have therefore made two plans, one with a more relaxed turnout where the switch are close, possibly too close and another with a less generous radius turnout but the switches are further away. I have tried to keep the minimum radius to below 5 ft, but due to the tight constraints of a small layout and wanting enough room to fit a small 0-6-0 and a couple of wagons in the head shunt, 3 wagons in the inside loop and a sector plate which will take a loco and 3 wagons I have dipped below this on some parts. I have just about finished shoving the timbers, so thought I would upload both files for some feedback and perhaps someone with more knowledge than me could polish up the 3-Way to a better standard than I have or give some advice on how to improve. As always, thanks in advance Josh |
||
Attachment: attach_2420_3019_Small_7mm_Layout_-_Spaced_3_Way.box 356 | |||
posted: 3 May 2017 10:31 from: Josh C click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
And here is the other file with the 3 Way where I think the switches are too close. I would also appreciate any feedback on how I have shove the timbers, I have taken a different approach on the two files on how the 3 way and turnout would interlace. |
||
Attachment: attach_2421_3019_Small_7mm_Layout_-_To_Close_3_Way.box 289 | |||
posted: 4 May 2017 09:17 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
John Only opened up the first plan, looks interesting and seem to remember seeing something similar before. My only comment is the two tracks going to the traverser, you need a reason why the converge on each other towards the traverser, or have a staggered scenic break between the two tracks |
||
posted: 4 May 2017 13:21 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Just as a matter of interest, what sort of scene are you thinking of portraying? Looks to me like a small industrial yard or maybe a small dock. Only thought is that if you brought the scenic break beyond the double track forwards a bit you might be able to squeeze in a second storage track. But maybe that's squeezing in too much. |
||
posted: 5 May 2017 00:00 from: Josh C click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hayfield wrote: JohnHi Hayfield. Thanks for your response, I have converged the tracks fro the through on the sector plate and also to indicate the line goes back into a point creating a loop to run around wagons if this makes sense? |
||
posted: 5 May 2017 00:13 from: Josh C click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Nigel Brown wrote: Just as a matter of interest, what sort of scene are you thinking of portraying? Looks to me like a small industrial yard or maybe a small dock.Hi Nigel, I am thinking of portraying a country scene. The left hand end of the layout will have a large mill style building which hopefully will overhang just enough to hide the scenic break with perhaps the addition of a tree in the triangular gap. Perhaps something loosely based around the design of Snape. As for the right hand end, I was thinking about cutting away the front of the baseboard to give an embankment and perhaps a small pond again with the odd tree to give the viewer something to look through and add depth to the layout. As for the back siding, I was thinking a small wooden clad or corrugated style good sheds with perhaps a small covered loading roof with a raised edge for loading of sugar beat and other goods traffic. As you move left towards the fiddle yard, I had planned to slowly fade the raised loading dock out into slightly over grown greenery with a few more trees and a small water tower. I am however open to ideas and suggestions as it's in the early stages of design/development! In regards to the second storage road, I did originally plan it like this but felt like it removed to much of the depth I was trying to create, which is enough of a challenge as it is in 7mm, and unfortunately I can't really make the baseboards any deeper. I was planning on getting away with this by designing a cassette which would sit in a cut out/stepped section in this back line. Just to give an indication, I plan to use a J68 and/or J65 to shunt the layout with perhaps the odd appearance from a J15 due to it's larger size. Any thoughts from anyone in regards to the two options of 3 ways and which timber shoving is perhaps the better option? Thanks Again, Regards Josh |
||
posted: 5 May 2017 13:10 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Josh. At first glance the second option does have the blades too close together, so the first posted box file is the better option, however it may be possible to produce something more workable in between these two options. I will not be able to have a look at it till Monday now as I shall be at the Derby Model Railway show over the weekend. Regards Tony W. |
||
posted: 8 May 2017 11:14 from: Josh C click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks for your reply Tony. Hope you have a good weekend at Derby and look forward to your response |
||
posted: 8 May 2017 23:29 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Josh. Your options are at best very limited as the tandem is very cramped and just about everything I tried only made things worse, so I have not altered the small spaced version much but merely tided things up as best I can. I have also got rid of the unused background templates in the storage box. In the storage box window under the Box drop down menu, Delete unused templates. To be used with care. Box file attached. Regards Tony. |
||
Attachment: attach_2425_3019_Small_7mm_Layout_spaced_2017_05_08_2316_20.box 263 | |||
Last edited on 8 May 2017 23:31 by Tony W |
|||
posted: 9 May 2017 21:07 from: Josh C click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Tony W wrote: Hi Josh.Hi Tony,Thanks again for all your efforts - Having had a final glance at what you have done, which is much appreciated I have increased the tightest V on the 3-way to a 6 and adjusted the crossover point accordingly. This hasn't reduced the length of the headshunt or the run round loop, from what I can see anyway and also eased the tightest radius to 5ft, which is much more practical. Hopefully this will now be the final revision. In doing this I have obviously had to change your nicely tidied up three way and am unsure if I have kept it true in doing so, and therefore perhaps wondered if you would had 5 minutes you could give it a quick once over. Thanks Again, Regards, Josh |
||
Attachment: attach_2430_3019_7mm_Plan_-_Final_Revision.box 247 | |||
posted: 12 May 2017 23:23 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Josh. You have introduced an error with one of the check rails in the process, which I have corrected. I have also combined one of the check rails with the wing rail as I think this looks better and will be stronger. A word to the wise. When you come to construct the Tandem, build and position all the vee crossings first before fitting the stock rails. I always begin at the far end and work toward the switch end. If you try to use the stock rails as the reference, you will encounter problems locating the third vee as there is a minor but significant difference between the positioning of the stock and check rails for some reason. There shouldn't be, but there is. If you position the vees first, the track gauge and check rail gauges will correctly space their respective rails from the vee. Regards Tony. |
||
Attachment: attach_2432_3019_7mm_plan_ger_2017_05_12_2259_08.box 276 | |||
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. |