Thanks so much for the fabulous feedback that I've received so far. It's really amazing to have prompted such a response.

I've been busy adding a few more details which I hope you won't mind me sharing. Don't worry, though. I'm not intending on reproducing every single piece of UK rail infrastructure. 

In order to reduce noise and wear to rails and wheelsets, flange lubricators (sometimes referred to as grease pots) are provided because, lets face it, no-one likes a dry flange. *Ahem*. These automatically apply a small amount of grease to the train wheels as they pass to help reduce friction. These are often found in areas where the route follows tight curves or at junctions.

When clean these are generally yellow to make them visible, but over time, and through careless refilling, these eventually become black.

Very simply, this is a drain. At some locations the ground or environmental conditions means that the ballast and formation of the track is insufficient to provide adequate drainage. In this instance additional drains are provided, either at the sides or between the tracks. I won't insult anyone's intelligence by showing the design in isolation, as I'm sure it should be clear.

This is a Hot Axle Box Detector (HABD) together with it's associated small portable-type lineside equipment building. These detectors are dotted around the network and are used to detect an overheating axle box. These automatic installations sound an alarm at the signalbox and tell the signaller which axle and on which side of the train the defect is occurring so that the train can be stopped and examined.

The central detector between the rails is offset to be nearer one rail or the other to help the system determine which side of the train the defective axle is.

There are many different designs of point/switch motors in use across the UK, and this is just one of them. It is an older design that has since been superceded but which remains in operation in large numbers across the network. 

The design does not affect the operation of the switch and should not interfere with passing trains either. I would have liked to have had a go at one of the successor designs, but the studless nature of the standard LEGO points/switch preclude this, although third party offerings may be different.

All of my designs so far have been made to be compatible with the PennLUG ballasting standard. While it's great for LEGO modellers by being compact and not too demanding in terms of parts, I don't think many operational railways would tolerate such a shallow bed of ballast. Certainly in the UK the trackbed is much wider and ballast shoulders are built up at each side.

I suppose you could call them shoulder pads in that they bulk out the track ballasting to more realistic proportions. There are side sections and centre sections.

Used together for a twin track arrangement (as in the previous picture) the total width comes out at 34 studs, two more than a standard 32x32 baseplate. Consequently I have shown the design split across two baseplates with the centreline as the join. To make this compatible with the MILS modules, the centre section is built in two halves to facilitate splitting of modules into individual 32x32 sections.

Edited April 8, 20204 yr by Hod Carrier

Keep them coming! Flange greasepots and hot axle pot detectors. Wow. The things you can learn on a Wednesday night inbetween sorting umpteen thousand cheese slopes...

I assume German railways would have similar infrastructure. Do you know how their designs are different and/or where I could find details?

(Oh, and it's probably a typo, but last time I checked a standard baseplate was 32x32, not 36x36 ;- )

 

Just now, Duq said:

Keep them coming! Flange greasepots and hot axle pot detectors. Wow. The things you can learn on a Wednesday night inbetween sorting umpteen thousand cheese slopes...

I assume German railways would have similar infrastructure. Do you know how their designs are different and/or where I could find details?

(Oh, and it's probably a typo, but last time I checked a standard baseplate was 32x32, not 36x36 ;- )

 

Thanks Duq. I'm glad I was able to provide a little light relief from your sorting duties.

I would assume that most railway systems have similar or equivalent systems on their own networks, but I'm not sure precisely what the designs look like. I only know what we have here in the UK which I can see out of my office window.

Thanks for spotting my mistake. I've corrected it now. 

Oh, these are great! Thanks for showing these.

The further detailing is looking great too

 

On 4/8/2020 at 4:30 PM, Hod Carrier said:

Used together for a twin track arrangement (as in the previous picture) the total width comes out at 34 studs, two more than a standard 32x32 baseplate.

For a home layout or a "it always goes together this way" mobile layout that works and adds more bang, but for a "we always put the layout together in different ways" layout keeping the track to 32 studs wide makes set up and tear down easier. (I say since my club is the latter group). You could even save bricks on the straights going this route if you use dark gray baseplates to get the last row of studs... but then the curves become a nightmare. [none if this is critical of your design, just thoughts of a trade off for someone inspired by your ballast design] The whole point of this thread being the devil in the details.

 

@zephyr1934 Oh yes, definitely. The track could certainly be made 32x32 by doing away with one plate's worth of depth, or by not building up the shoulders quite as high. There are certainly workarounds to help achieve an easier and more practical solution to suit whatever mode of operation you use. I'll admit that I haven't yet looked at curves and how these might be ballasted, but I agree that they are likely to be less straightforward.

As you say, the devil is indeed in the detail. Some of these designs are likely to be more (or less) practical and therefore won't suit everyone.