Hi All
To go with my new (single road) engine shed, I'd like it to be dual purpose - ie SG and NG.
In order to achieve this, the NG line has to cross the SG line but not in any conventional geometric angle (it may need to be on a curve for instance).
I'm planning to cut slots in the SG rails for the flangeways and, then, use bridging wire under the baseboard for electrical connections. This is, primarily, to avoid having to build dual-gauge point work etc.
Am I likely to run into any shorting problems across the tracks ? Operationally, I tend to only power one line at a time, but, sometimes am joined by a second operator.
I think I can arrange things so that both NG rails only have to cross one SG rail before running down the middle of the SG track and into the shed. SG track is Peco code 75 '00', NG is Peco code 80 'N'.
Thanks for any assistance /pro's and con's etc.
Dave
It's probably not a good idea for the NG track to be on a curve through the crossing and you may be heading for trouble unless you have a short straight on both lines through the crossing.
Electrically I'd be tempted to make the crossing so that the 4 corners are isolated from one another - so gapping the running rails - and making the check rails within the 'diamond' with something non-conductive like plastic strip on its edge or angle. The four 'poles' of the crossing can then be switched for either standard or narrow gauge, but I'm afraid that I can't work out if that can be done simply with a single double pole, double throw switch or if it needs something more complex (two switches working in tandem?).
Re-reading your post also suggest you are thinking of 'gauntleted track' with 4 rails - NG within the SG - as you mention the "NG rails crossing one SG rail". That might be a bit difficult to arrange with the somewhat over scale Peco rail (though may be possible with a finer rail section), though if you used a 3rail system (one running rail common to both gauges) then this is available commercially from Europe (Tillig?), and one can buy plain 16.5/9 mm gauges (HO/HOe) and point work including where the gauges separate (or merge, depending on which way you are running).
I need to jump in and remark that I found that Peco rolling stock could not run through the Tilig bifurcation point. When departing the dual gauge track the Peco flanges would hit the sharp end of the fixed point rail.
I have an equivalent requirement - for a dual-gauge bridge - and will be watching this thread with interest...
What on earth is a bifurcation point?
Peco's flanges must be bad, then I saw a dual gauge layout using Tillig track a few years ago and it seemed fine, but all the stock was continental.
Thanks for the replies all.
It seemed like quite a simple idea - there could be hidden snags though as you say. I think a diagram of the requirement may help to visualise it.
I'll see if I can knock something up in MS Paint. (Not much in the way of CAD skills at present !).
Here's the general idea : (looks like a '4-frog' set-up maybe ?)...
(https://i.imgur.com/POEVH32m.png)
Quote from: Dave Cooper on April 03, 2021, 21:22
Here's the general idea : (looks like a '4-frog' set-up maybe ?)...
(https://i.imgur.com/POEVH32m.png)
That helps Dave.
A bit of terminology here - the 'frog' is also (more correctly?) known as a 'common crossing'. Getting the NG rails in between the SG ones needs two. The set up will also need check rails (rails just inside the gauge that guide the flanges).
As to the electrical set up I'd think of it as '½ a crossing', so I'd gap the SG rail between the NG rails (to prevent the NG track current shorting) and the NG rails before the frogs into the dual gauge section. It might also be worth gapping the SG rail opposite the gap in the crossing and arranging the section switching through a double pole double throw switch so that one way energises the SG, the other powers the NG (meaning that you can't have both 'live' at the same time), and if the switch is also 'centre off' then it will also isolate both sets of rails.
Thanks Julian
That gives me a bit of encouragement to start experimenting.
I have a DPDT /Centre-off switch in stock that I bought for the rope-worked incline. As this is now planned to be under Arduino control, I can 'borrow' the switch for the shed testing.
I've not worked out how best to do the check rails yet. I probably need to order some more track and some track gauges. Will the mix between code 75 and code 80 trip me up ? I may be able to lower the '80' to match the '75' in height ?
The fun starts soon !
Dave
Quote from: Dave Cooper on April 03, 2021, 23:14
I've not worked out how best to do the check rails yet. I probably need to order some more track and some track gauges. Will the mix between code 75 and code 80 trip me up ? I may be able to lower the '80' to match the '75' in height ?
I would use the same sized rail for the four-rail section. As JulienW said, the issue might be the width of the base of the rail. With centrered dual gauge the inside running surfaces are 3.75mm apart, so check whether it can be fitted in with either of your two rail sections.
Just as an aside, I would think that having the SG of a smaller rail size to the NG might be a bit unusual, but 5-thou is two-tenths of bugger all (actually 0.13mm) so your joining section could well be aligned vertically with a bit of judicious filing of the code 80, or packing the code 75 with a 5-thou section of styrene. Convert to whatever rail you choose a short distance before the two crossings.
The shallow angle you have drawn might also result in difficulties with the K-crossing. With the long gaps in the flangeways there, it is likely to be very hard to support the wheel across the gap.
I don't understand why you are over complicating it. In real life they are much more likely to just use one common rail for both SG and NG, that simplifies it, you only have one crossing and (in real life) would be cheaper. There's no logic which would make that set up the preferred option as only one loco, SG or NG can use it at one time. If you needed a pit it would simply go between the NG rails but would simply be used for maintenance, emptying clinker would be done outside the shed.
In my opinion four rails is less complicated than three.
Here's the Tillig "solution":
(https://www.jb-webshop.de/WebRoot/Store12/Shops/61816751/4ACC/8517/3D11/C861/99C2/C0A8/28BC/51F3/pz85182.jpg).
(I'd mention its type but that didn't go down too well earlier.) The Standard Gauge rail between the Narrow Gauge rails needs to come to come to a sharp end (I'm trying to avoid using the word 'point') and my experience with Tillig indicates that this has to be be made to work with the desired rolling stock.
Oddly the JHMD uses a single blade where they branch off the SG mainline. But that's probably for safety rather than anything else, the speed limit is about 60mph at that point so you don't want derailments!
(https://i.imgur.com/0QYlcUV.jpg)
Having had a bit more thinking time on this like Hobby I can't help thinking that 4 rails in the engine shed seems to be a lot of effort, both in terms of prototype and model, for no real reason I can think of (other than the aesthetics or symmetry and the satisfaction of doing something difficult and getting it to work).
As Hobby has pointed out in the real world there would be extra cost involved in laying 4 rails as opposed to 3, and if there is to be an inspection pit in the shed then the percentage cost goes up even more as the SG rails could be supported on the sides of the pit and the NG rails will need a girder under them, and a 4 rail setup needs 2 girders. Any smoke ventilation can be made to accommodate the 'off centre' NG locos with wider collection trough similarly set off centre, though if the shed relies on a ventilated clerestory then it will not matter as any smoke / steam will find its own way out.
Personally, being a fan of the easiest option were possible I'd go for the Tillig (or similar) 3-rail track as it's ready to lay and should work (or be fairly easy to make work) as opposed to something hand built that might or might not work, with the resultant dissatisfaction if (when?) it doesn't...
Even if you do go down the hand built route 3 rails will be easier to lay then 4, and probably easier to wire up too.
Thanks for the photos and extra thoughts folks.
Yes, on reflection, 3 rails in the shed makes a lot of sense. (I was really thinking of electrical simplicity with 4). I also think a 'crossing' would be easier to make than a dual gauge turnout - for me anyway !
A few measurements on the layout lead me to think there could be space problems....if so, a dual gauge turntable just outside the shed maybe the answer - perhaps...
Will come back to you when I've got some space /dimensions in mind.
A different solution giving a fuller illustration of this part of the diorama. The NG line would probably need very tight radii, new gauge, loco and stock. It would cross the SG line at about 50 degrees or so.
(https://i.imgur.com/kZ2JvhZl.png)
As I was measuring up, I couldn't help thinking that a dual-gauge 'slip' would be handy at the first point position !
QuoteOddly the JHMD uses a single blade where they branch off the SG mainline. But that's probably for safety rather than anything else, the speed limit is about 60mph at that point so you don't want derailments!
Why 'oddly'? Where would any other blade go?
The main issue you will find is all about the flange gaps.
On real railways the flange gaps are virtually the same for both SG and NG, but in model form you will find that the flange gaps need to be bigger for the SG and this then creates issues with the smaller NG wheels sort of dropping down the gap.
One way around this is to only use fine scale SG wheels, but this basically rules out any ready to run SG items as they all have bigger flanges.
With the Tillig track we found that the flange gaps were too small for many of the SG items we had and that they were also too big for some of the NG items, so the worse of both worlds! We also found that the dead frog caused the NG locos to stall at slow speed.
In the end we made a point with a moving frog section, much like a quarry stub point and a single blade, this works very well indeed for both the SG and NG. For a long time, we thought there was not a prototype for this, but then we found one in eastern Europe! The point was built on a seperate section of the 1/4 (6mm) ply track bed that once compleated with the mechanisun was inserted into the layout. All the dual guage track is made using SG rail with a transition section where it joins the NG. Here is a photo, it is switched to the NG, this was before the scenery was done in this area of the layout:
Quote from: Tom Haythornthwaite on April 04, 2021, 17:41Why 'oddly'? Where would any other blade go?
If you look at the Tillig photo there isn't a blade at all.
That's a neat solution Brian. I don't know if I could build one but, it would be fun to try !
Regards,
Dave
Trying to improve the CAD skills a bit ! This is the latest proposal at the shed end. The assumption here is that the wheel flanges will steer the loco's down the appropriate track...
(https://i.imgur.com/jvkiGX3l.png)
This being OK, I'll follow up with a diagram of the crossing
Yes that should work OK, I'd wire it up as a complete section for the shed, with a DPDT switch to change it from SG to NG. Actually quite a neat solution and a lot simpler!
Thanks Blair
I'm a great one for simplicity ! Yes, a dedicated DPDT shed switch sounds like a good idea.
It's the crossing next (I'm expecting some electrical trickery may be necessary...)
Dave
Proposed Crossing SG /NG. Any tips on wiring, rail heights, flangeways, check rails etc. greatly received. I'll probably have a bash at making this up myself...
(https://i.imgur.com/eWZq4MA.png)
Forgot to mention - all points (SG & NG) are Peco Electrofrog.
Couple of thoughts:
As a short cut I wonder if buying a ready made crossing and cutting it up might be one way to go. I'd suggest that starting with a OO or HO (so 16.5 mm gauge) crossing and cutting a 7.5 mm wide strip from between the rails on one of the routes to convert it to 9mm gauge would be easier than taking a 9mm gauge crossing and making one of the routes wider. Either way you'd get all the check rails and flangeways set correctly, and if you get a live frog crossing then the electrical side of things should also be sorted (just follow the instructions that come with the crossing).
Some time ago Society member Keith Angus produced a set of templates to make various 009 points based on Peco geometry bit with more variety of radii (including double-curve points).I can't recall exactly what was covered but I think dual gauge crossings were included though perhaps not as big an angle as you'd like. They would, however, give you an idea of what goes where (flangeway gaps, check rails etc.) and electrical gaps. Keith's copyright allows for distribution as long as it is not for profit and full credit is given, so if you'd like to message me with an email address I can send you the pdf files.
As to rail height it probably makes sense to have both gauges on the same section so if going down the hand built route then it may be worth stripping some flexitrack for its rail as you aren't going to need much for a single crossing.
Quote from: Dave Cooper on April 05, 2021, 15:56
Proposed Crossing SG /NG. Any tips on wiring, rail heights, flangeways, check rails etc. greatly received. I'll probably have a bash at making this up myself...
The first thing you need to know is what wheel profiles are you going to use on the SG locos and rolling stock.
If you use anything other than fine scale then the flange gaps will be too big for the NG.
Basically, you need to use the same wheel profiles for the SG as you do for the NG.
In regard to the wiring, you really need it to be all electrofrog to do this you need to use isolating fishplates and connect the rails as shown on this version of your diagram with four sections, I will work out the switching, but it will need a DPDT switch to select narrow or standard gauge.
Thanks for the replies and further info' both.
Julian : As luck would have it, I've got an old Lima 00 diamond crossing (I suspect about 30 years old now !) still in it's original packaging but no wiring instructions as far as I can remember. As you say, may be a useful source of parts...
Brian: Great mod to the diagram - the colours make it easy to follow. As for wheel profiles, it's whatever came with the loco's, kits and stock :
NG - Kato 4-wheel chassis. Farish 08 shunter chassis. Scratch-built wagon on a standard N gauge chassis.
SG - Bachman (04 ?) Shunter. Mainline J72t. Lima DMU. Hornby "Smokey Joe" tank. Hornby "Rothersay Industries" tank. Ratio Brake, Ventilated vans and Clay wagon. Old Triang tanker and coach (coarse scale I would think). A right old mix ! All will run on the current (SG Code 75 /NG Code 80) track nicely. The exception being the old Triang stuff which hits the chairs and is noisy but will run !
I'll be using a DPDT switch in the shed to switch between SG and NG. Just wondering if this could do 'double-duty' at the crossing as well maybe ? If not, an extra switch is fine operationally.
Dave
Quote from: Dave Cooper on April 06, 2021, 11:13I'll be using a DPDT switch in the shed to switch between SG and NG. Just wondering if this could do 'double-duty' at the crossing as well maybe ? If not, an extra switch is fine operationally.Dave
I can't think why it wouldn't work that way.
Just measured up the old Lima diamond crossing and it's much too big for the location.
I think it's got to be a 'tailor-made' job. Possibly, I may be able to use some of the crossing parts at the intersection of the 4 rails though....
Julien, if I may, I'll take up your offer to forward some templates and pm you my email address.
Thanks,
Dave
I know it looks nice, Dave, but is it really necessary? The vast majority of interchange stations between SG and NG I've seen have all of the NG onj one side, the side where the NG branches off to it's destination, so no need for it to cross the SG. Apart from the cost of the crossing you have to factor in that the crossover has to be signalled to be used safely so that makes it even more unlikely!
There is already an interchange station (split-level) between SG and NG for passengers, but, no real facility for interchange of goods.
Hence, the thought is to use the canal wharf at the bottom of the rope-worked incline for interchange of goods. (I'm really looking to extend the operational scope of the diorama here which is currently very limited !).
Yes, it is a bit of a 'fad' really, but, also a technical challenge to see if I could make it work. Probably, non-prototypical. You never know I may find a way of getting a bit of dual gauge back to the fiddle yard - now that would open it up a bit...
By far the easiest way to have dual gauge track is with two facing sidings, the standard gauge coming from one way, the narrow gauge from the other. No points or crossings are needed and with DC you can use the common return system so even with a shared rail no switching is needed and both narrow and standard gauge can be used at the same time.
I have one of these on my layout.
However, the layout was planned with this and the other dual gauge section in mind from the start it was not just fitted in after.
I think I may chance standing on a high stool and taking an 'aerial' shot of the existing lines - SG and NG.
Possibilities could spring from this ! We could then reference the same things with some confidence...
At the moment, without going full or, partial, dual-gauge, I think we have to cross the SG line somewhere. I'll place some buildings on to aid understanding. Photo to follow.
Dave
Chickened-out and used the floor instead. Access to the wharf at 'ground level' is via the bridge /viaduct thingy. Diorama board size is 4 foot by 15". All ideas welcome...
(https://i.imgur.com/URRjNfb.jpg?1)
Another way to do a photo showing the track layout is to lean it against a wall! I've suggested that for people who don't want to do a track plan for their News article but it's fallen on deaf ears so far! (Like the shoe!!) :)
Looking at the space available I'd be tempted to leave it be. The station layout is the same, I think, as the Leek and Manifold station at Waterhouses where the two platforms back onto each other. The Goods faculties are a few yards down the track... So there's an excuse for a second board!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterhouses_railway_station_(Staffordshire)
Hmm, yes, that old Hush Puppy needs retiring now !
I think I'll award myself "0" out of 10 for layout planning though....the initial idea was to see how I got on with the different gauges, scales etc., and build a few kits. A fiddle yard extension to the 'west' connecting to both lines would add quite a bit of operational scope I feel.
Can't help wondering about that dual-gauge thing though...
Lovely! And challenging.
Whatever technical solution you choose, aren't the standard gauge points going to be smack-dab in the way of the approaching narrow gauge track?
Replace with a double slip and the narrow gauge going through it... Now that would be a challenge!
Nice Carpet!!
Yikes, - a mixed gauge double-slip ! Oh, that would be nice Father Christmas...
One thought is to run the NG through the shed and onto the SG siding alongside the roadway. This would have to be 'fed' from the fiddle yard though. Is that allowed ?????
I inherited the carpet when an errant log rolled out of the fire and made a small burnt offering.
I am sorry to say this, but I think you may need to start again and plan your next layout around the features you want it to include rather than trying to fit extra things in on your original plan.
Others may think differently, but I think you will be wasting your time and effort to try and put extra features on this layout.
You would also be able to replace that N gauge track, that to me will always look wrong with 009 track.
If you want a goods interchange and canal side wharf with both NG and SG tracks than as I mentioned above plan the track, so they are end on sidings with no need for any crossings.
When it comes to all layouts, not ust 009 pre-planning is vital. It is better to spend several days planning than weeks trying to sort out problems later.
Point taken Brian (no pun intended !). This has been quite a learning experience for me as a first attempt. I do fancy tackling some home-built trackwork in future, so, that could be my chance to improve....
By the way, I bought a pack of "Gaugemaster" spoked wheelsets the other day. I was thinking of standardising all my rolling stock using these - good idea or not ?
Regards,
Dave
I would agree with Brian, trying add extra features into an existing layout is not usually going to end well.
Time spent in planning a layout is never wasted, which is something I learnt from my 00 layout where having built the baseboards I just slapped the track down without any real overall plan which years later resulted in operating problems and a growing dissatisfaction with the layout (it still exists in the loft as a model of a post-Beeching closed line!)
Before I even started building the baseboards for my 009 layout I spent a couple of months thinking about what I wanted the layout to look like, both in terms of track plan and the scenery the line would run through, this approach has paid dividends as I have a layout that I enjoy both running and working on.
Looking at the photo / track plan I think I'm inclined to agree with Brian.
Whilst there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that layout as it stands Dave, with what is already there it's going to be difficult to fit in the additional features you are after without essentially stripping off what is there already, and from that respect it may be better to start again with with a blank sheet of paper - I use graph paper for the initial work up, then lining wallpaper for a full size drawing.
As things stand to get NG to the loco shed I think you'd want an NG spur off the 'lower' of the 2 track just after the point on the bridge. This line would then swing over to join the SG platform line as dual gauge (3 rail) which could then be used as a headshunt for the loco to get into the shed, wither with all the SG from the head shunt to the shed replaced with 3 rail dual gauge or with the NG dividing from the 'SG platform road', roughly where the hut next to the coal staves are, running through the end of the staves to cross the coal siding at an angle and then running alongside the 2 SG points to rejoin the SG just outside the shed.
Perhaps a simpler answer is to abandon thoughts of a shared loco shed, and for dual gauge interest have an the same NG spur just after the NG point on the bridge but have that line crossing the SG platform line (rather than joining it) and having the NG interchange line in the SG yard between the 2 SG tracks - but it would mean loosing most (if not all) of the coal yard.
The complication comes when you think about which way the goods are being transferred and what is being moved across and the need to get the relative levels of SG and NG right.
Heavy minerals (coal, quarried stone) would most likely be shifted by men with shovels. As the floor of SG mineral wagons would be higher than that of the NG ones if both were on the same ground level then shovelling from SG to NG is helped by gravity, but if the transfer is from NG to SG then they will not want to be shovelling uphill so the NG siding would most likely be raised to help with moving the loads (or raised up enough so the NG wagons can be tipped into the SG ones). For things in sacks, boxes, barrels (containers of some sort) then having the floors of the NG & SG vehicles at the same height helps as these things can be carried (by hand, by barrow or rolled) from one to the other.
The problem may be that with the dual gauge crossing needing to be on the level there may not be enough length to get the 2 gauges at the right heights for the transfer.
Quote from: Dave Cooper on April 09, 2021, 09:11
.................. I do fancy tackling some home-built trackwork in future, so, that could be my chance to improve......
Regards,
Dave
I would recommend against hand built points, the Peco 12 inch and 18 inch radius 009 points are good products these days.
In my experiance it is a lot easier to plan a layout around these than it is to build your own. You will also find the Peco points are more reliable and robust than hand made track. The plane track is another matter as it is a lot easier to do, but the problem here is you will not find copper-clad sleapers that are the same thickness as the webbbing on the peco points, so again perhaps using the Peco 009 track is the best way forward.
Quote from: B.Meldon on April 09, 2021, 09:45
I would recommend against hand built points, the Peco 12 inch and 18 inch radius 009 points are good products these days.
In my experiance it is a lot easier to plan a layout around these than it is to build your own. You will also find the Peco points are more reliable and robust than hand made track. The plane track is another matter as it is a lot easier to do, but the problem here is you will not find copper-clad sleapers that are the same thickness as the webbbing on the peco points, so again perhaps using the Peco 009 track is the best way forward.
Whilst I would agree with you in part, Peco 12" and 18" points are not much use if, for example, you want a 15" radius point, or a 24", or other 'exotica' like and unequal Y point or double curved point, or a 9" live frog come to think of it, unless you want to chance something that is 20+ years old (and may already have been on 3 different layouts).
Personally I found hand built track a liberation as my rails could go where
I wanted them rather than being dictated by what Peco make, and without those little doglegs needed to work within Peco's limitations I found the layout 'flowed' with a more pleasing aesthetic.
Equally, whilst the soldered joints on the tie bar of a hand built point is unlikely to last long under the punishing thwack of a solenoid point motor using a different technique - wire in tube or slow motion servos for example - may be more compatible, as will building the points with pivoting blades rather than relying on flexing soldered joints. That being said not all Peco points will stand up to long term use either, as I has a spate of needing to replace them on an exhibition layout due to multiple failures of the plastic tie bar (with wire in tube operation).
Whilst I'm not for one moment saying building your own points is easy it's certainly not one of those impossible things achieved only by those practicing some black art. It's probably not much more of a step up in skill terms from soldering wires to rails, just a bit tedious when it comes to filing point blades.
A few years ago, I converted some 16.5mm track to 18.83mm as an experiment in P4. This was quite easy but, I also tried converting an 00 brake van to P4 as well and, this was much more difficult...
Given that my current (limited) 009 stock is to commercial standards, and runs fine on Peco Code 80 track, I feel fairly confident in attempting a crossing at this stage. If it doesn't work out, it's not the end of the world, the cost will be minimal, and I'll probably learn something !
Whether it will have a place on the present diorama is another thing. I think I'll give it a go.
Regards,
Dave
The modern stuff will work just fine on code 55/60 as well, Dave, in fact I think I've seen some on code 40 on a layout based on the Welshpool, @JulienW will confirm one way or the other!
Quote from: Hobby on April 11, 2021, 08:19
The modern stuff will work just fine on code 55/60 as well, Dave, in fact I think I've seen some on code 40 on a layout based on the Welshpool, @JulienW will confirm one way or the other!
I can't recall the name of the builder (I'm sure I have his details somewhere as I recall inviting him to the NG Midlands that Covid put the kybosh on) but the layout was Castle Caereinion. He had indeed used Code 40 flat-bottom rail fixed to wooden sleepers with contact adhesive and when I saw it at the Welspool gala (2019?) it seemed to be fine running current wheels (like those from Dundas and fitted to the Farish 08).
My own track building efforts have involved Code 55 on copperclad sleepers and tests with a 4 wheel wagon with Dundas wheels didn't show up any problems.
Perhaps I have just been very lucky, but I have only ever had one Peco 009 point fail in more than 30 years. Including the old 9-inch points on Meanderbahn that were all fitted in 1979 and get a daft amount of use at exhibitions! I use solenoid point motors with a capacitor discharge unit, all secured to a solid ¼ (6mm) plywood track bed, so they do get whacked across. The only one that did fail was on the fixed layout Westdorf and that was down to my stupidity, when fitting an additional switch that I did not use in the end anyway, and the tie bar snapped at the control hole, not the rail. I managed to repair this without lifting it and it is still in use today. I have had two pins snap on the Peco point motors and one point lost electrical connection between the blade and the frog rail through the fishplate pivot on Pitztalbahn about 25 years ago now, we soldered jumper wires to every point, but this was overkill and I have never had another fail like this since.
(I also have a fully automated 00 layout with peco points with solinoid point motors and capacitor discharge units. Some of the points must have switched thousands of times without any issues, but obvioulsy 00 points are perhaps more robust than 009 points.)
On the other hand, I have also operated a number of 009 layouts at exhibitions with handmade points and almost without exception at some time at each exhibition one or more point has given problems, often the same point on the same layout at each exhibition!
The layout planning thing is all down to what you want I guess. I am happy to fit what I want around the geometry of the Peco 009 points, but I can fully se why others would choose not to do this and build track to fit the plan they want.
As a matter of interest, could you tell me what is the practical 'minimum' radius curve for 009 / N gauge ?
For my shed experiment (if it goes ahead), I'll be using a short wheelbase diesel shunter (Kato chassis), with equally short wheelbase wagons - maybe tippers....
Something like this - to go from the shed to the wharf
(https://i.imgur.com/Lzeqz7h.jpg)
Quote from: Dave Cooper on April 13, 2021, 11:02
As a matter of interest, could you tell me what is the practical 'minimum' radius curve for 009 / N gauge ?
For my shed experiment (if it goes ahead), I'll be using a short wheelbase diesel shunter (Kato chassis), with equally short wheelbase wagons - maybe tippers....
It is not the loco or wagon wheelbase that is the limiting factor it will be the coupling overhang.
In many cases you will find that bogie vehicles with the couplings on the bogies are better than four wheel vehicles in this regard.
Egger-bahn curves were 140mm radius (about 5 1/2 inch) almost all locos will get round this, but the coupling overhang will de-rail the next vehicle if it is too long.
If you want to have tighter curves or use vehicles with a longer coupling overhang then you will need to fit modified couplings, or use a different type alltogether.
For almost everything that is available ready to run to work with standard couplings in reality you need 12 inch curves and 18 inch reverse curves. You may get away with 9 inch curves, but these will be quite restrictive on what you can run and may well give problems when propelling. (I have a layout with 9 inch curves and points and it is very restrictive on what I can run.)
Something that is rarely mentioned when it comes to minimum radius is the angle of curvature. I don't have the facts and figures to support it, but there is surely a difference between a 6 or 9 inch radius curve that is say 5 degrees, 10 degrees or ??? degrees and one that is a 180 turn or even a 90 degree curve.
Having (possibly unintentional) severe curves over a very short distance and small angle is something that is sometimes seen on layouts in order to get track in the right place.
What I can't get my head around at all is how much effect transition curves would have, i.e. is it preferable to have say a 180 degree turnaround at the end of a continuous run layout of a constant maximum radius that will fit the space, or go tighter at the 90 degree mark so that the lead in and lead out is gentler. I can see when running at speed this is desirable in order to ease the sideways acceleration, but what if any effect it has at low speed I've no idea.
I've used 6" curves with four wheel stock with no issues, inuding a loco from Narrow Planet using the Kato chassis. As long as you don't go mad eith the wheelbase you will be OK. Six inch radius looks a bit silly, though, do use the largest radius you can.
Thanks all
From memory, I used a 'mini'-sized paperclip for the coupling between the shunter and my scratch-built test wagon. It seems to cope with everything I've thrown at it so far - push or pull.
I tried to standardise on 6" radius as a minimum on the 'N' gauge track. I think there was the odd bit of transition in there as well. Not mathematical, but more what looked right. The 0-6-0's are a bit more finicky than the 0-4-0's though...
I'll see if 6" radius works, if not, it may have to be a narrower gauge. 'Z' maybe ??? (Oops, is that a swear word !)
I don't think Z gauge would get you any smaller radius curves, I think the minimum is about 5 1/2".
If you want smaller a smaller radius, T gauge will give you something like 4 1/4", the 3mm gauge would give a different sort of layout in 4mm scale. A 9" gauge 'ride-on' railway perhaps. :)
Z will get tighter curves but personally I wouldn't bother. Prices for Z mechanisms tend to be higher and there's a lot less choice.
Also its a lot more fiddly than 9mm.
QuoteWhat I can't get my head around at all is how much effect transition curves would have, i.e. is it preferable to have say a 180 degree turnaround at the end of a continuous run layout of a constant maximum radius that will fit the space, or go tighter at the 90 degree mark so that the lead in and lead out is gentler.
Graeme, you can have your cake and eat it too. First imagine your 180 degree turnaround at the maximum available radius, and then begin the transition curves - leading in a bit from the edges of your space. You probably wouldn't want to approach the curve with straights along the front and back edges anyway.
I'd lay strong odds that most railway modellers do not use transition curves. They certainly won't when making a layout using set-track! "K Ottick" (Ron's Layout) which I had and rebuilt used 6" radius curves and the only issue we had was one piece of badly laid track (by me!) which one particular loco didn't like (the rest were ok!), it didn't have transition curves or the space for them!
Transition curves look so much better. Operationally they also reduce the problem with couplings tending to throw adjacent vehicles off the track. Personally I wouldn't (haven't since moving to HOn30 anyway) build a layout where straight track leads directly into any radius curve less than maybe 18"
My definition of Transition : " A gentle lead into a curve just before the tight bit comes..." (Not very precise that !).
I had a dream about the crossing last night (how very sad) - must be time to get down to work then.
Dave
I've decided to start at the canal wharf. This will provide a link to the rope-worked incline, which in turn, links to the NG sidings...
Using spare Code 75 Peco rail borrowed from the SG side, this will be 'buried' into the wharf's timbers. I think there may be a bit of "civil engineering" to the bridge support needed to permit a reasonable radius curve. I should then have a fairly straight run down to the crossing.
Photo to follow (if this goes to plan !).
A quick update :
Work on the 'civil engineering' side has progressed well. The Code 75 rail seems happy with a 6" radius but may need to go to 5.5" or so, at a pinch point.
Due to loading gauge constraints under the girder bridge platform, will have to use a bogie bolster, or similar, (probably scratch-built) to service the canal wharf. Most of the canal traffic is timber, sand and other loose materials, so may have to design some purpose made stock.
Currently experimenting with sleeper spacing on the NG track (Peco N gauge). Removing every other sleeper as a 'starter-for-ten'. This may turn out to be too 'gappy' and force a re-think...
Hopefully, some photos soon.
A rare novelty item for mixed-gauge enthusiasts:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51132681835_4f2b8a023e_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kUqmSF)000878 (https://flic.kr/p/2kUqmSF) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/92012779@N06/)
- available from 009 Sales - only one in stock, only £5!
David.
Nice - unfortunately, I think most of my dual gauge will either be on curves or, an approx. 45 degree crossing.
Pity to cannibalize it for parts....but, very tempting for a future project maybe.
Thanks for the thought,
Dave
Quote from: clayliner on April 22, 2021, 17:03
A rare novelty item for mixed-gauge enthusiasts:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51132681835_4f2b8a023e_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kUqmSF)000878 (https://flic.kr/p/2kUqmSF) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/92012779@N06/)
- available from 009 Sales - only one in stock, only £5!
David.
Have you ever tried to use any of the Tillig dual gauge track?
We had a go when it was first released many years ago now. We found that the dead sections caused the 009 locos to stall at slow speed, the flange gaps were too big for the 009 items with some of the smaller wheels dropping down the gap.
However we also found that the standard gauge flange gaps and check rails were too small for most of the 00 items we had.
In shout for us it was no good at all.
In the end we made the dual gauge track our self.
Brian Meldon
There was a layout doing the rounds a few years ago, Brian, which worked just fine, but it was using German stock (NG and SG).
You should volunteer for the post of Promotion and Advertising officer with the Sales team, Brian!
David.
As suggested previously, I think I'll be going for live frogs coupled with a DPDT switch at the NG /SG crossing.
I expect these will have to be purpose made though. Any guidance on jigs /solder fills etc. greatfully received...(expected crossing angle 45 to 60 degrees(ish).
Dave
Quote from: clayliner on April 22, 2021, 17:03
A rare novelty item for mixed-gauge enthusiasts:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51132681835_4f2b8a023e_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kUqmSF)000878 (https://flic.kr/p/2kUqmSF) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/92012779@N06/)
- available from 009 Sales - only one in stock, only £5!
SOLD!
QuoteSOLD!
Let us know how your stock gets along with it.
Hi Tom - someone else must have bought it....One thing I haven't managed to get around to yet is how to buy things 'on-line' from Member's Sales. (Or, even to view what's available come to that).
I'd like to but am totally bereft of knowledge in this area :-[
Can anyone enlighten ?
Thanks,
Dave
You need to go to the Member's Section of the Website and log on. Then if you go onto the sales section of the website, find the item you want to buy and it will say "Add to Basket". When you've finished your shopping go to the basket checkout and follow the instructions. Where are you struggling?
Ah, looks like I need to contact the Membership Secretary first ? Then, presumably, get log-ins, passwords etc set up ? And, then I can proceed (I'm guessing !) ?
I expect this will be just to 'have a look'. Then more procedures etc. to actually buy something ?
Confused of Wiltshire.
(I once attended a Sales Course. The guy running it said "always make it easy for the buyer to buy from you...")
I assure you once you are able to log in to the member's only areas of the web site it is only too easy to spend money in the shop! :)
Quote from: Dave Cooper on April 29, 2021, 23:56Confused of Wiltshire.
As Graeme said it isn't difficult, in fact it's as easy as buying stuff anywhere else online such as Hattons, Rails, etc, There is nothing complicated about it!!!
There are only two differences between Hattons and the 009 Online Shop, firstly that you need a members logon (which as you say you get from the Membership Secretary -
this is to prevent non-members buying stuff from us!) and secondly the 009 Shop has far more variety of 009/H0e locos and stock than Hattons and Rails put together!
The Sales Team would agree that life would be easier if people didn't need a separate log-in for the members' area/shop (separate, that is, from the forum). However, the online shop is a recent development and the current procedure is hopefully an interim arrangement which it will be possible to streamline before too long. Ideally all Society members would be issued with the necessary log-in details automatically rather than having to apply for them. For the time being we have managed to at least make viewing of shop items available to non-members, so that's a step in the right direction.
Once you have actually managed to get the required log-in credentials buying from the shop should be pretty straightforward - if you have problems please do send Sales an email and we will always try to resolve any issues for you.
The Sales Team.
Quote from: Dave Cooper on April 29, 2021, 23:56
Ah, looks like I need to contact the Membership Secretary first ? Then, presumably, get log-ins, passwords etc set up ? And, then I can proceed (I'm guessing !) ? I expect this will be just to 'have a look'. Then more procedures etc. to actually buy something ?
The items in the shop are available to
anyone to view - you don't need to be a Society member or have any log-in details to have a look at what's on offer.
If you want to buy, however, you will need to be a member and to have the necessary log-in credentials.
David.
I suggest requesting login rights beforehand and not waiting until you see something you want. Sod's law, it will have gone by the time you are able to logging (and that is not a slur on the speed of web elves but the short time desirable items can remain on the 'shelves'. :) )
Email request sent.
Credit /Debit cards ready...
Hope they do accept these, unless it's the dreaded "PayPal Only" non-sense !
(Blast, I think my Amex Platinum has expired - I should be so lucky).
Thanks for the 'prodding' all. I'm sure I'll get there.....come to think of it, I did buy the little freelance diesel shunter from Member's Sales. :-\ I wonder how I managed that all those years ago ?
I've got as far as viewing, but not buying. Login's etc. all sorted now (I hope !).
Will probably need some wagons and a coach or two before long, so, will keep an eye on what's in the shop.
Thanks all for the help,
Dave
We are poised and await your (first) order, Dave...
The Sales Team.
I'm not sure whether to 'officially' adopt the English, or, the Welsh name for the diorama's main station /quay.
Unlike "Llanfair PG"....I've got room on the station name board for the Welsh version. Also, as a born and bred Swansea boy - now living in England - I think I can lay claim to both. Perhaps a 'multi-lingual' name board could be the answer ?
What do the experts think....?
Dave
Quote from: Iain Morrison on May 05, 2021, 21:38
Is there actually a choice? Surely it must be Welsh - perhaps with English subtitles?
On the MVR all the station names are in Welsh but the various signs and noticeboards around the layout are a mix of Welsh and English.
Funnily enough, I am brushing up on my Welsh at the moment (not that it was ever brilliant !).
It doesn't help that the English and Welsh alphabets are different, so, a lot of place names don't directly translate...however, you can usually get a close approximation with a little bit of 'modeller's licence'.
Oh, we are going a bit off thread here...
Dave (or, should that be Dafydd ?)
The tracklaying gang have started work at the quay. This leads down to the crossing...
(https://i.imgur.com/rCtRR38m.jpg)
This one should make it a bit clearer :- (need to make a track gauge now !)
(https://i.imgur.com/rCtRR38l.jpg)
Quote from: B.Meldon on April 05, 2021, 21:18
Quote from: Dave Cooper on April 05, 2021, 15:56
Proposed Crossing SG /NG. Any tips on wiring, rail heights, flangeways, check rails etc. greatly received. I'll probably have a bash at making this up myself...
The first thing you need to know is what wheel profiles are you going to use on the SG locos and rolling stock.
If you use anything other than fine scale then the flange gaps will be too big for the NG.
Basically, you need to use the same wheel profiles for the SG as you do for the NG.
In regard to the wiring, you really need it to be all electrofrog to do this you need to use isolating fishplates and connect the rails as shown on this version of your diagram with four sections, I will work out the switching, but it will need a DPDT switch to select narrow or standard gauge.
Brian - I am approaching the crossing now with the trackwork. As I intend following using your suggestion of live frogs (see diagram - page 2) with a DPDT switch could you give some guidance please on wiring...(I've got my own ideas but they may lead to a short or two !)
Thanks,
Dave
Trackwork at the quay is progressing well. The loading gauge under the viaduct is tight(ish) though. Now approaching the actual crossing between the two SG points.
(https://i.imgur.com/oNY2IJ1l.jpg)
The other side of the crossing will link to the shed road and a (shared) third rail
The road side of the crossing will carry the line at surface level, before entering the shed just after the (pink) ashpit. If all this goes well, I'll try making a dual gauge point and join up with the SG siding near the coal staithes - just off the top of the photo (ambitious or what !).
(https://i.imgur.com/Mde465Ol.jpg)
Failing that, Plan 'B' will be to run a shared rail siding instead. Apologies for the rather poor lighting and other detritus...
Dave
I hope to make a bit more progress with this over the winter.
Using a few test trucks and a gauge, there does seem to be some gauge variation here and there....this may be down to my home-made test gauge. So far, no derailments though. May be a different matter when loco plus wagons are tried !
More photos to follow - best regards to all,
Dave
The crossing come-eth...
(https://i.imgur.com/qtat7kHm.jpg)
At long last, I've taken the plunge and started making the crossing. This will link the quayside to the shed /sidings. Hopefully, it should give the diorama more operating scope and interest. Due to the low loading gauge under the bridge, I'll need to tailor-make some wagons /flatcar to suit. The loco will also have to be of restricted height - maybe a little 'side-saddle' petrol job.
This is my first go at hand-laid track, so, I'm learning as I go along ! Flangeways will be set to approx. 1mm to start with. There is some re-gauging and alignment to do on the run up to the crossing.
Dave
A better overall view of the crossing perhaps ;
(https://i.imgur.com/qtat7kHl.jpg)
I shall have to give some thought to signalling though as crossing a main line has potential liabilities !
Any thoughts ?
Dave