Atomic Systems

Before commencing my East African narrow gauge magnum opus, I thought I would try something simpler, and decided to go for the Midland Railway's Wirksworth branch. I researching the line, I discovered that it had a connection to the Cromford and High Peak, so I put in an incline above Wirksworth to just below the (rope worked) Middleton incline. I then headed east towards Cromford, and roughly laid Sheep Pasture as straight double track to get the gradients right. Having set it at 6 degrees, I then tried to put the loop around the runaway catch pit in and this is where the problem lies. Using finescale 9.46 degree points and interworking curves - with a 3.something straight, I could do this with all the tracks level and everything lines up beautifully, but when I come to try and do it on the 6 degree slope, the last two curves will not make a proper joint with double track again. I have fiddled it with odd short bits here and there, but I cannot see why things that align horizontally will not do so on the incline. Has anybody got any idea what I have done wrong?

Does the gradient start/end at the same point for all tracks? If not, you will have a difference in length between them. Remember, as the gradient increases the horizontal distance decreases. If one track starts the gradient earlier, it will finish before the rest - hence leaving a gap. Make sure the gradients of parallel tracks start/end together, if thats not possible add very short lengths to fill the gap and/or adjust the gradient of some sections to compensate.

MMMMM, can't help with the track alignment issue......BUT........from the historical perspective.............you are aware that the Wirksworth incline connection to the Cromford & High Peak, while planned and laid out, and the winding engine house partially completed, never reached fruition..........???????

Tim,
Thanks for the reply, I checked it all over again last night. The upper part of the incline is made of of 200m sections of double track, so both sides of the loop start from a common altitude and x position. What I did find, is that if I didn't put the points in, just made a loop with interworking curves, everything lines up. I wondered if there might be some tiny assymetry between left and right hand points and substituted a reversed LH point for the RH one - obviously it would be useless from an operating point of view, but it still doesn't align.

Yes, you're quite right Dan, the "connection" was never actually used, Howard Sprenger's book suggests that the junction may possibly have been laid, but that it was never used - but that doesn't stop us putting one in!

[quote="jefran] but that doesn't stop us putting one in![/quote]


Absolutely, yes, but please try to ensure people understand it's fiction, not fact, and only applied to the very earliest time period............there's already been enough false trails on this particular issue down the years....................

Hope you are going to model the now partially sunked wagon that's still in that catch pit today from the last runaway, though are you settling on a time period, or just "free" time?

I had an idea to get working inclines in MSTS, but have never had the time to try it out...........an invisible "loco" actually graphically made to look like the spliced double chain connection to the winding rope, with super adhesion and power for the gradient.

I have Cromford Wharf and Sheep Pasture Incline Bottom fully working in 'N' gauge. (including the working incline)

How about going north west to Whaley Bridge?? Would give the NLT's a run for their money....................

Anyway, have spent a long time researching the C&HPR, so if you should need anything please ask on direct Email.

This is a known issue with all parallel track pieces, especially noticeable at grades above 1%. Paths for parallel track use an offset value from center which causes 'steps' in curves on grades.

For my own ScaleRail sections (and to solve this problem), I opted to create multiple inside and outside single track pieces for whichever curve radii I was using at the time. The idea is to lay out your route as a single line, except where straight sections are used. You then come back and lay the inside or outside pieces to create the double/triple/quadruple curves as needed. When you get to where the curve begins to straighten out, you adjust this single piece to match where it's to join the straight piece, and thus get rid of the step in the curve. These special curves are marked A/B (inside), and D/E (outside), with 'C' being the otherwise normal curve and not specially marked.

Obviously, this adds to the object count in a route tile, but it shouldn't be a problem since the tiles are relatively small, and your line is probably following a path in, and then out of a tile. It also adds a little work in that you have to lay some extra track. Not the best solution, but might be something Tim could work into his UKFS if he thought the idea useful.

Solved it!

As I mentioned in my second post, I got everything to line up by contructing a loop without the points. All I did last night was to substitute the appropropriate points for the interworking curve and straight and all is well - you just have to remember to set the point on the way down so that you don't end up in the catch pit, just as on the real thing! Thanks to everybody for their interest and suggestions.