 |
| Moderated by: . |
Page: 1 2   |
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 27th, 2015 08:09 pm |
|
1st Post |
Sean W
Registered
| Joined: | Wed Apr 15th, 2015 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 91 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Hey guys,
I'm really really chewing on the idea of building Iain Rice's 4x8 " Lilliput Logger " layout. It has everything I was wanting in a very compact and manageable layout. A engine service facility, a town, a logging area, a coal mine, a mill, steep grades (4%) and trestles, and even a pier! It really is incredible the amount of stuff he was able to tastefully cram into this layout! I'd be aiming at post WWII 40s era.
I'm curious tho, If someone could give me insight to what the Mill and Coal Mine would look like? The Mine is circled in Red and the Mill is circled in blue.
Id want the Mill to be able to receive and unload logs on skeleton cars, then use flat cars to export the finished lumber product from the mill to the pier for export. I think this might be a tall order for such a compact mill... :/
The mine is just a coal mine on the side of a hill. That should be much more simple to model. But some insight to a protoype that would work would still be appreciated!
Thanks!
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28th, 2015 04:53 pm |
|
2nd Post |
Si.
Moderator
| Joined: | Thu Feb 23rd, 2012 |
| Location: | London |
| Posts: | 5779 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Hi Sean.
I can see radius much lower than 18" on this plan.
It's not totaly clear to me if this plan is drawn for On30 or HO.
If it's for On30, then loco & car-length would have to be absolute minimum.
Whether in On30 or HO it looks to me as though some seriously wierd turnout-geometrys have been used...
...my guess, is for it all to fit in 8'x4'...
...custom-trackwork, would be the only option.
It is a neat plan.
But it seems to me, he has simply tried to put too much in the space.
Cheers.
Si.
____________________
' Mysterious Moose Mountain ' - 1:35n2 - pt.II
http://www.freerails.com/view_topic.php?id=7318&forum_id=17&page=1
' M:R:W Motor Speedway !!! ' - 1:32 Slotcar Racing Layout
http://www.slotforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59295&st=0&a
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28th, 2015 05:52 pm |
|
3rd Post |
| Posted: Tue Dec 29th, 2015 10:48 am |
|
4th Post |
| Posted: Thu Dec 31st, 2015 12:52 am |
|
5th Post |
Sean W
Registered
| Joined: | Wed Apr 15th, 2015 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 91 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
John, thanks very much for the insight! That will make designing a mill much easier!
What were you thinking for the coal mine?
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2nd, 2016 12:40 am |
|
6th Post |
oztrainz
Super Moderator
|
Hi Sean,
Happy New Year,
The short answer is "it depends"on the size and type of the mine and the method of handling the coal at the surface above the load-out track.
For a small mine like on your plan, a drift mine into the side of the hill on the flat rather than a vertical shaft mine may be a better option. A head frame and winding house can eat a lot of real estate. Even a small shaft mine like the Bartley Mine at http://www.miningartifacts.org/West-Virginia-Mines.html the headframe and winding house are significant sized structures
It looks like the plan has only one load-out point, so the coal will be "run-of-mine' without any sizing being done at the load-out point. Compare the the track arrangement in the plan with
that loads to a different track for different sized coal. You could swing the screens or sizing plant 90 degrees and have separate bins over a single track, but I think the small space available in you plan might rule this out.
Depending on your period, the size of "run of mine" coal will vary from larger lumps with smaller fines through the coal in days of hand mining to a more uniform sized but smaller coal if the coal is being mechanically mined.
If the coal is delivered from the mine by a conveyor belt, then you could model a bin under the end of the conveyor belt. If the coal was delivered to the surface in coal skips, then you would have something like the skip tipples shown at https://www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/selectdocs.php?index=s&id=566
From your plan it looks like you have enough room on the siding behind the tipple for 2 to 3 coal hoppers. Remember that you also need the same amount of room after they are loaded so that you don't foul your main line track.
Operationally you pick up 3 loaded coal hoppers, shove another 3 empty ones past the tipple for loading, put your train back together on the main line and continue on your way. At the tipple they would use gravity or a car puller to move the empty coal hoppers under the tipple for loading.
Also have a good look at
http://appalachianrailroadmodeling.com/abcs-of-coal-loaders/ and the rest of the Appalachian Railroad Modelling site or to the "Mines" page site at http://www.welshcoalmines.co.uk/index.html for some more inspiration,
____________________
Regards,
John Garaty
Unanderra in oz
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2nd, 2016 03:31 am |
|
7th Post |
| Posted: Sat Jan 2nd, 2016 03:59 pm |
|
8th Post |
Ken C
Registered
|
Sean
Based on the height of trackage, I would guess this layout was planned for N scale. There would be less then
2 inches of clearance where the branch line cross's over the lower mainline track.(upper right end of plan). Although
an interesting plan, I would look at enlarging it for grades and clearance, if done in HO or On30.
Ken C
GWN
____________________
Ken Clark
GWN
Kaslo & Slocan Railway
International Navigation & Trading Co
Kootenay Railway & Navigation Co.
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 2nd, 2016 08:39 pm |
|
9th Post |
Sean W
Registered
| Joined: | Wed Apr 15th, 2015 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 91 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Ken, The layout was featured in a 1998 issue of Model Railroader with a whole article. It is designed to be an HO layout. That cross over point is a worry to me also. I plan on building up layers of foam to get the desired height for the large trestle on the top right, So if i need to i can make the lower track lower by caving out a channel for the track to go in so it clears. Or make the top tracks grade steeper to give more clearance.
john, What a great picture you found, that one is perfect!
|
|
|
Ken C
Registered
|
Sean
It appears to be that Ian has the wrong grade height's marked, maintaining the 4% grade past the coal mine should place you close to 3&1/2 inches at the trestle approach and
something like 4&1/2 inches at the logging site. This will provide the necessary clearance for the lower tracks.
Lowering the section of layout under the trestle would
enable you to built a trestle taller then 3&1/2 inches across the canyon, this is something I would consider.
Happy modelling of the layout, as it looks like an interesting design.
Ken Clark
GWN
____________________
Ken Clark
GWN
Kaslo & Slocan Railway
International Navigation & Trading Co
Kootenay Railway & Navigation Co.
|
|
|
Current time is 10:10 pm | Page: 1 2 |
|
|
|
