!!

Not Registered?

Welcome!  Please register to view all of the new posts and forum boards - some of which are hidden to guests.  After registering and gaining 10 posts you will be able to sell and buy items on our N'porium.

If you have any problems registering, then please check your spam filter before emailing us.  Hotmail users seem to find their emails in the Junk folder.


Thanks for reading,
The NGF Staff.

Author Topic: Gleneagles circa 1962  (Read 7896 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1129
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #45 on: May 11, 2013, 01:52:19 pm »
I was so intrigued by the suggestion from Leo that I've redrafted the layout. Certainly increases the storage area. Needs a bit of tidying but may now be ready to go......


 :thankyousign:
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 01:57:04 pm by Arrachogaidh »

Offline Leo1961

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #46 on: May 11, 2013, 02:09:45 pm »
Looking good  :thumbsup:

One to watch  :beers:

Offline newportnobby

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+54)
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • N Gauge Society Number: 21962
  • Posts: 26083
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2013, 04:50:36 pm »
Although I concur with Leo's 18% arrangement, I have grave doubts about the 33% variation :hmmm:
It may look OK in a drawing, but do you think you'll be able to fit those nice curves onto your baseboard and then run everything you want to run round them? :worried:

Offline Leo1961

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #48 on: May 11, 2013, 05:43:20 pm »
Although I concur with Leo's 18% arrangement, I have grave doubts about the 33% variation :hmmm:
It may look OK in a drawing, but do you think you'll be able to fit those nice curves onto your baseboard and then run everything you want to run round them? :worried:

It should be alright as the tightest curve is standard radius 1 and all of the others are a lot less strict  :thumbsup:

As for the gaps, the software ( SCARM ) isn't always as accurate as you would lay it in real life, so there should still be sufficient for the longest two pieces of rolling stock to pass without contact.

But, of course, the proof will be in the laying  :drool:

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1129
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #49 on: May 11, 2013, 07:11:37 pm »
Hi Leo and Newport,

I don't think the curves are particularly tight and they are all on the flat so I am prepared to give it a go. I will still play around experimenting with curved points etc. to try and ease the situation. When looking behind the scenes at shows I am always interested in fiddle yards and some have very tight curves.

My main concern is with the Branch Line which has to rise and fall and negotiate curves. Main use will be short local trains or railcars but I have a secret plan to link in with a layout I saw some years ago where heavy freight emanated from St Fillans which is west of Comrie....... And of course as the Branch is now "Heritage Owned" some other specials may run up there...... :wave: :wave:

Offline newportnobby

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+54)
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • N Gauge Society Number: 21962
  • Posts: 26083
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #50 on: May 12, 2013, 09:53:10 am »
Problem with curved points is that Peco ones are only available in long and nothing smaller. Fine for main running lines but take up too much space in branch line and fiddle yard areas.
I hope you can get it to fit as Leo's suggestion is a good 'un.

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1129
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #51 on: May 12, 2013, 12:55:49 pm »
Yes Newport, a good idea. The points would always have their restrictions no matter where located so moving them slightly shouldn't really be an issue, I hope....

 :beers:

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1129
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #52 on: May 12, 2013, 03:22:27 pm »
Problem with curved points is that Peco ones are only available in long and nothing smaller. Fine for main running lines but take up too much space in branch line and fiddle yard areas.

I know it is probably a cardinal sin to mix track from manufacturers but I do have a variety of Peco, Minitrix and Roco in the toolbox. I was however looking to start afresh with Peco 55 as much as possible.

I think now is the time to start seriously planning the baseboard as the layout seems to have neared completion.
 :thankyousign:

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1129
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #53 on: May 13, 2013, 08:29:44 pm »
To ensure portability if it should ever meet exhibition standard no baseboard will longer than 1.6m.

I think I am now satisfied with the layout. Baseboards will probably be marine ply. Two of 1.4m x 0.9m (Fiddle yard) and one each of 0.4m x 0.9m, 1.6m x 0.9m and 0.8m x 0.9m for the front of the layout give or take a couple of mm.



 :thankyousign:

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1129
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #54 on: May 15, 2013, 09:33:12 pm »
So, having a final'ish layout plan and an understanding of portabilty influencing baseboard size I need to look at the sub baseboard layout i.e. beneath the marine plywood and also at control methods.

I have seen several modular type constructions and the normal 2x1 frameworks but not sure what is best.

Considering I have a fair number of locos in stock I am looking towards DCC operation of the entire circuit.

Any suggestions, advice, best practice would be welcome at this stage as it is very important to get the base correct.

cheers,

Brian :thankyousign:

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1129
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2013, 02:05:03 pm »
Happy to look afresh at things as my next version of the layout shows.
It is 2.9 by 1.9 so is I think acceptable for my intended location and utilises Code 55 up front and only Code 80 on the fiddle yard lead in area. I may have shortened the platform lengths which will compromise what can be used as stopping services. I'll see where that leads me next. Previously I had room for loco plus 6. I think now stopping trains will be loco plus 5. Not a disaster I guess. I think the main platforms are 125 m long. Not sure what that is in N Gauge cm. I have about 93cm main and 72cm branch platforms on the drawing.



I think it will work with almost all available locomotive stock. I will conduct tests beforehand to discover this. The hobby has evolved and many of the older vehicles which I have I think will sail through the layout. If newer models do not then their has perhaps been a compromise made by manufacturers regards ability versus finer detail.




There is still some tweaking to take place, but as a result of all your comments I think the result is more realistic than previously shown and thank you all for your advice.

Constructive assistance is always welcome.

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1129
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #56 on: May 23, 2013, 10:19:42 pm »
Thanks for the revised plan, I am still not sure the inclined section will work.
The best way to build the layout seems to be four, 1450 x 950 boards.  The inclined ramps and overhead section would be a separate structure supported from, and connected to the main boards.


Anyone care to comment?

Offline Sprintex

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: CLOSED
  • Posts: 7176
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #57 on: May 24, 2013, 09:11:54 am »
Can't see why the inclined section should be a problem?

It appears to have about 5' of length in which to rise on the left, allowing a clearance of 2" where it crosses the inner loop gives a 1:30 gradient, not ideal for steamers generally but since it's a branch line I'm guessing it will only have short trains anyway? Plenty of room the other side to lose height in so seems perfectly workable to me ;)


Paul

Offline Greybeema

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 22399
  • Posts: 993
  • Country: england
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #58 on: May 24, 2013, 09:33:13 am »
The alternativeis to build the baseboards as an open topped board with your track base on risers lifted up above the frame.  You could then have a track bed that rises and lowers so if one side rises as the other falls you can maximise the clearance whilst minimising the slope..  Remember that any clearance will need to allow for the thickness of the trackbed and rail height..
:Class414:
Worlds Greatest Suburban Electric - Southern
(Sparky Arcy 3rd Rail Electrickery Traction)

My Layout on NGauge Forum:- http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=12592.msg154278#msg154278

Offline newportnobby

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+54)
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • N Gauge Society Number: 21962
  • Posts: 26083
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Gleneagles circa 1962
« Reply #59 on: May 24, 2013, 12:42:22 pm »
Don't forget if you fit point motors under the baseboard not to do it where a road, for example, passes underneath. Believe me. it's been done before :-[

 

Please Support Us!
November Goal: £55.00
Due Date: Nov 30
Total Receipts: £90.00
Above Goal: £35.00
Site Currency: GBP
164% 
November Donations


Advertise Here
anything