A newbie looking for feedback on my track proposal [Updated + Finalised with Video]

[Chimer]

17 hours ago, Will Hay said:

A couple of helpful folk have recommended either a couple of Y's toe to toe, or a slip joint.

Despite playing with my track software and looking at countless images on google of real tracks showing the slip joint, I just can't seem to fathom it.

 

It's not you, those suggestions are unfathomable .....

• Ys back to back won't work in your set-up because neither route is straight - there are s-curves in both of them.
• Two lefts, or two rights, back to work would work, with one route straight and a big s-curve in the other one. 
• Using back to back points of any kind also provides you with the crossovers between the blue and yellow tracks which might be an advantage, but you don't seem to want ....
• A double slip is a diamond with added routes, giving the same (unwanted) options as back to back points.  But as far as I know no-one does slips matching the 22.5 degree turnout of set-track points (if they did, the curved elements would be viciously small radius).  So you'd have to relay the whole of that section using Streamline points and slips.

The simpler solution would be to put a route restriction on the offending loco!

 

Best of luck ...

Edited December 1, 2020 by Chimer

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thank you for sharing the video - photos / videos alway brings a plan to life: you’ve made a lot of Metcalfe kits! (I enjoy making them, but don’t work as quickly as you seem to have been able to).

 

This is the second video I’ve seen in recent days with a coffee cup prominently displayed on a layout: I joked when I saw the first one that I should start including cup holders in any layout plans - maybe we should!

Edited December 1, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Chimer]

If you're still puzzling about slips, this may help .... apologies if I'm stating what's already known ...

 

The diamond you know about.  The double slip effectively sticks a point on each of the four tracks of the diamond, and links up the curved tracks of the points (3rd diagram).  This enables trains arriving from either route on the left to leave via either route on the right.  A single slip only adds two points to the diamond so provides fewer options (4th diagram).  The trick is that the points and the diamond are then all squashed together into a compact bit of pointwork (2nd diagram and big (bigger than I expected!!) picture).

 

 

 

[Will Hay]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Thank you for sharing the video - photos / videos alway brings a plan to life: you’ve made a lot of Metcalfe kits! (I enjoy making them, but don’t work as quickly as you seem to have been able to).

 

This is the second video I’ve seen in recent days with a coffee cup prominently displayed on a layout: I joked when I saw the first one that I should start including cup holders in any layout plans - maybe we should!

 

Thanks for this 

Don't be fooled on the kits.

Whilst I absolutely love making them I haven't made all.

I'd guess about 50% were bought from ebay, fully assembled and well made and averaged no more than a fiver each.

The church with custom made steeple was just under nine pounds 

 

I think I was lucky, I bought two lots of eleven buildings [for approximately fifty pounds each set] but recently ebay prices have gone crazy.

I clearly got in at the right time.

They're an absolute delight to make, my favourite is the esso station, booking hall and department store, all of which were by my fair hand!

 

Sincere thanks Chimer.

That's a lot to take in for me so I'll study more later tonight.

I'm not adverse to anything, I just want to be able to link the tracks and feel this is the final aspect of the jigsaw.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Will Hay
Spelling

[Will Hay]

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

• Two lefts, or two rights, back to work would work, with one route straight and a big s-curve in the other one. 
• Using back to back points of any kind also provides you with the crossovers between the blue and yellow tracks which might be an advantage, but you don't seem to want ....

 

Hello.

Could you kindly expanding on these two points?

Do you mean like so...

[Chimer]

Yes, exactly like that, except that you'd have to duplicate the arrangement to also enable crossovers from yellow to yellow - like so:

 

 

The advantage over using the diamonds is you are providing routes from blue to yellow and vv - the disadvantage is that a train going from yellow to yellow or blue to blue will look like a snake with indigestion!  And of course the pairs of points take up more space than the diamonds they are replacing, so the whole thing gets longer.  Though you can play around a bit ....

 

 

... and save space by curving one or both sets of tracks away within the same footprint - need some tiny fiddles to make this one fit together properly.  I turned this one upside down too, its closer to your original setup.

 

I've used Peco Set-track points in these diagrams, don't have Hornby parts loaded, but I think the geometry is identical.

 

Cheers, Chris

[Flying Pig]

On 30/11/2020 at 19:37, Will Hay said:

As you can see I have four loops, two are clockwise [3 & 1 in blue] and two are anti-clockwise [4 & 2 in orange].

I want to be able to maintain a link between loop 4 [outer] and 2 and 3 and 1 [inner] with diamond crossings.

 

A couple of helpful folk have recommended either a couple of Y's toe to toe, or a slip joint.

Despite playing with my track software and looking at countless images on google of real tracks showing the slip joint, I just can't seem to fathom it.

 

The double junctions in your diagram look fine to me for joining tracks running in the same direction.  I don't know why you'd want to change them unless you want to connect every track to every other track, but then you can already do that with the help of the facing crossovers at the ends of the inner and outer pairs of loops.

[Will Hay]

4 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The double junctions in your diagram look fine to me for joining tracks running in the same direction.  I don't know why you'd want to change them unless you want to connect every track to every other track, but then you can already do that with the help of the facing crossovers at the ends of the inner and outer pairs of loops.

 

I like it too, but I have a 2-6-2 [might be a 4-6-2, it's the Tornado, in any case] that doesn't share my love for my current configuration.

Having said that, it's only one of fourteen locomotives [if you don't count the 0-4-0 and my 0-6-0 SWB's] that slows over each diamond so I may retire the Tornado to the ebay graveyard. 

[Will Hay]

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

Yes, exactly like that, except that you'd have to duplicate the arrangement...

 

 

... and save space by curving one or both sets of tracks away within the same footprint - need some tiny fiddles to make this one fit together properly.  I turned this one upside down too, its closer to your original setup.

 

I've used Peco Set-track points in these diagrams, don't have Hornby parts loaded, but I think the geometry is identical.

 

Cheers, Chris

 

Hi Chris,

 

Does the following accomplish the same principle [all tracks serving all lines], albeit with less points than your example?

Thanks,

Rob

[Zomboid]

6 minutes ago, Will Hay said:

 

I like it too, but I have a 2-6-2 [might be a 4-6-2, it's the Tornado, in any case] that doesn't share my love for my current configuration.

Having said that, it's only one of fourteen locomotives [if you don't count the 0-4-0 and my 0-6-0 SWB's] that slows over each diamond so I may retire the Tornado to the ebay graveyard. 

I'd be pointing the finger of blame at the loco if you've got 13 others that work fine with the diamonds.

 

But the non-diamond arrangements will achieve the same functionality.

[Chimer]

2 hours ago, Will Hay said:

 

Hi Chris,

 

Does the following accomplish the same principle [all tracks serving all lines], albeit with less points than your example?

Thanks,

Rob

 

Well spotted, certainly does, I should have spent more time looking at my suggestion .... I felt there might be a bit of redundancy in there, but couldn't spot it 

 

 

[ITG]

10 hours ago, Will Hay said:

 

Hi Chris,

 

Does the following accomplish the same principle [all tracks serving all lines], albeit with less points than your example?

Thanks,

Rob

It looks like it may be possible to smooth some of the S-snakes by changing the outermost RH/LH points on the top and bottom lines, for Opposite-hand ones, and moving them out a little so that they are built into the approach curves.Doing so wouldn’t alter the sequencing of the various x-overs but would smooth the entry routes.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 02/12/2020 at 00:05, Chimer said:

 

Well spotted, certainly does, I should have spent more time looking at my suggestion .... I felt there might be a bit of redundancy in there, but couldn't spot it 

 

 

Hi Chris / Will - if I’ve got it right, Chimer’s version allows parallel / simultaneous movements: an Up and Down train could pass while changing circuits:*

 

 

No more than 3 of the 8 routes through the junction pass any one part of it (I think).

 

With the “point saver” version, a bottleneck is created that every train changing circuits must pass through:

 

 

5 of the 8 routes pass through this single spot, while two of the six crossovers need to operate in both directions.

 

Operationally, I wonder if this might cause difficulties for multi-train running?

 

I’d also be inclined to suspect the locomotive. From the video, it looks like you may have at least one other locomotive with the same wheel arrangement as I think I saw a blue LNER A4 (both are 4-6-2 Pacific’s).  If the A4 runs OK, the ‘slowing’ of Tornado would suggest something is catching or sticking over the diamond.

When I had a Setrack layout, the Hornby diamond crossover I had worked fine - it was the points, with moving parts and more delicate rails that gave me the trouble - do bear in mind there’d be a risk if your relaid the track that the problems could get worse, not better.  Just a thought, Keith.

 

(* I found a piece of that special paper Schools use for sending letters home to parents that comes ready crumpled)

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Chimer]

@Keith Addenbrookethanks for the plausible excuse for my using four extra points, wish I'd thought of it 

 

I tend to agree with your "just a thought".

 

Chris

[Will Hay]

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi Chris / Will - if I’ve got it right, Chimer’s version allows parallel / simultaneous movements: an Up and Down train could pass while changing circuits:*

 

 

No more than 3 of the 8 routes through the junction pass any one part of it (I think).

 

With the “point saver” version, a bottleneck is created that every train changing circuits must pass through:

 

5 of the 8 routes pass through this single spot, while two of the six crossovers need to operate in both directions.

 

Operationally, I wonder if this might cause difficulties for multi-train running?

 

I’d also be inclined to suspect the locomotive. From the video, it looks like you may have at least one other locomotive with the same wheel arrangement as I think I saw a blue LNER A4 (both are 4-6-2 Pacific’s).  If the A4 runs OK, the ‘slowing’ of Tornado would suggest something is catching or sticking over the diamond.

When I had a Setrack layout, the Hornby diamond crossover I had worked fine - it was the points, with moving parts and more delicate rails that gave me the trouble - do bear in mind there’d be a risk if your relaid the track that the problems could get worse, not better.  Just a thought, Keith.

 

(* I found a piece of that special paper Schools use for sending letters home to parents that comes ready crumpled)

 

 

Ah, yes, of course.

I secretly knew Chimer had it right first time but I certainly couldn't spot it 

 

In all honesty, I've hit a little bit of a brick wall on one aspect.

I don’t yet have a means to control points automatically, so that's guiding my layout somewhat.

At the minute, nothing is running on more than one loop, so can sometimes be rather 'samey' ['boring' is an incorrect description].

 

As I outlined to a couple of people way back when I started in and around April time, I'm limited by my imagination/the possibilities available.

I know I have to decide what I want, and what I want is a number of locomotives running all at the same time.

I'm far from adverse to curves, I quite like the beauty of the 'snaking' effect at times.

 

As for the troublesome Tornado, this thing is a beauty at very, very slow speed on the straights,  but doesn't like the diamonds and occasionally it slows on points.

It's such a shame as I do like it, plus it was a bargain.

 

I have to add that, somewhat embarrassingly, none of my track is yet secured, as I'm still not 100% happy with the layout.

I accept this might contribute to the problem with the Tornado but given that the rest run fine, it's clearly a locomotive issue.

 

Any recommendation as to tweaks on layout to gain a particular advantage would be very welcome.

Thanks.

[Will Hay]

4 hours ago, ITG said:

It looks like it may be possible to smooth some of the S-snakes by changing the outermost RH/LH points on the top and bottom lines, for Opposite-hand ones, and moving them out a little so that they are built into the approach curves.Doing so wouldn’t alter the sequencing of the various x-overs but would smooth the entry routes.

 

Those shown with the black smudge are curves, so I can't extend the conventional points out any further.

I do have some curved points but heard these are troublesome, and not recommended.

I really didn't give them enough testing time to make an informed decision, they're sat around somewhere.

[ITG]

15 minutes ago, Will Hay said:

 

Those shown with the black smudge are curves, so I can't extend the conventional points out any further.

I do have some curved points but heard these are troublesome, and not recommended.

I really didn't give them enough testing time to make an informed decision, they're sat around somewhere.

 

What I was suggesting does not involve curved points. Taking the top right crossover as an example what you have is something akin to example A below. You could instead opt for example B, using one point of the opposite hand, which then means you do not have the S bend coming round the curve, and thn through the crossover.

 

 

[Will Hay]

7 minutes ago, ITG said:

 

What I was suggesting does not involve curved points. Taking the top right crossover as an example what you have is something akin to example A below. You could instead opt for example B, using one point of the opposite hand, which then means you do not have the S bend coming round the curve, and thn through the crossover.

 

 

 

Gotcha, understood, many thanks.

 

5 hours ago, ITG said:

It looks like it may be possible to smooth some of the S-snakes by changing the outermost RH/LH points....

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Will Hay
Clarity

[Zomboid]

37 minutes ago, Will Hay said:

As for the troublesome Tornado, this thing is a beauty at very, very slow speed on the straights,  but doesn't like the diamonds and occasionally it slows on points.

It's such a shame as I do like it, plus it was a bargain

I'm far from an expert in such matters, but that sounds like it could be a back to back issue, where the inside of the wheels are binding on the check rails or something. If you can accurately measure the distance between each wheelset then someone (not me!) might be able to tell you if they're within an acceptable range. That kind of thing can be fixed.

 

Presumably if it were an electrical supply issue then it would just stall.

[Chimer]

Some random thoughts on your more philosophical issues:

 

Running lots of trains at once, especially if it's just you in charge, is probably best done with a number of separate simple circuits with one train running on each.  You could do this using multiple levels, bridges where tracks cross always look good (and there are lots of Metcalf kits to help that sort of thing along ).  That way you could stick to double-track main lines which do look more realistic, even if they are clearly still going round in circles.  No absolute necessity to link the levels either.  Some variety can be achieved by the use of loops to hold additional trains awaiting their turn (these could be extra platforms in stations, freight loops anywhere, or loops hidden behind scenery), or by changing locos.  Both of these require operating points somehow, and changing locos involves uncoupling, which can be challenging.  You may recall we suggested earlier that one reason for operating from a central well was that you can reach all the points that way, and change them by simple finger-power ...... you obviously need to bite the point operating bullet one way or another to avoid the sameiness you're feeling.

 

Lots of us keep from getting bored by setting ourselves shunting puzzles and/or trying to run our trains to an established "timetable" of sorts (which is where things like fiddle yards come in).  But it doesn't seem as though you'd find those sorts of things particularly appealing.

 

None of which probably helps too much!

 

Cheers, Chris

[Will Hay]

That's a massive help Chris, sincere thanks.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

14 hours ago, Chimer said:

Some random thoughts on your more philosophical issues:

 

Running lots of trains at once, especially if it's just you in charge, is probably best done with a number of separate simple circuits with one train running on each.  You could do this using multiple levels, bridges where tracks cross always look good (and there are lots of Metcalf kits to help that sort of thing along ).  That way you could stick to double-track main lines which do look more realistic, even if they are clearly still going round in circles.  No absolute necessity to link the levels either.  Some variety can be achieved by the use of loops to hold additional trains awaiting their turn (these could be extra platforms in stations, freight loops anywhere, or loops hidden behind scenery), or by changing locos.  Both of these require operating points somehow, and changing locos involves uncoupling, which can be challenging.  You may recall we suggested earlier that one reason for operating from a central well was that you can reach all the points that way, and change them by simple finger-power ...... you obviously need to bite the point operating bullet one way or another to avoid the sameiness you're feeling.

 

Lots of us keep from getting bored by setting ourselves shunting puzzles and/or trying to run our trains to an established "timetable" of sorts (which is where things like fiddle yards come in).  But it doesn't seem as though you'd find those sorts of things particularly appealing.

 

None of which probably helps too much!

 

Cheers, Chris

I agree with Chris’s observations.  As a variation based on my own experience, when I was becoming more active in the hobby I built a continuous run Setrack 8’ x4’ layout, based on an old Model Railroader plan I liked as a kid.  It was great fun, and I didn’t get bored: although I could only run one train at a time, there were up to 9 different ways to get round the layout, so from time to time I would do just that - continually switching the points to cover all routes (then reversing the train to make another 9 loops returning).  Basically I was a very busy Signalman!  I didn’t always operate like that, but I could.

 

With your layout you can either run multiple trains, or control just one train in a more complex way.  Adding variety can disrupt sameness.

 

(In the end, what did for the layout was seeing a Peco Streamline Long point on display in my local model shop, but that’s another story...)

[Will Hay]

Currentky undergoing testing, but looking great so far, especially the end points suggested by @ITG and the revised, overall layout of the section, thanks to @Chimer

 

Thanks again to all for your contributions.

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Will Hay
Image upside down

[ITG]

9 hours ago, Will Hay said:

Currentky undergoing testing, but looking great so far, especially the end points suggested by @ITG and the revised, overall layout of the section, thanks to @Chimer

 

Thanks again to all for your contributions.

 

Could you not also move at least some of the other crossovers (on the right hand two lines in your photo) along slightly, so that you could also use my suggestion of one point in the pair being the other hand, so as to smooth the snake effect? I appreciate not all all could be designed that way, as I doubt there’s sufficient space, and then still be able to maintain the sequencing of all the crossovers across all 4 tracks.

Edited December 5, 2020 by ITG
Added phrase

[Will Hay]

4 hours ago, ITG said:

Could you not also move at least some of the other crossovers (on the right hand two lines in your photo) along slightly, so that you could also use my suggestion of one point in the pair being the other hand, so as to smooth the snake effect? I appreciate not all all could be designed that way, as I doubt there’s sufficient space, and then still be able to maintain the sequencing of all the crossovers across all 4 tracks.

 

Ah, yes.

That did cross my mind when I'd finished to be honest, but I think I was a little wrapped up in the uniformity/how nice it looked.

I'll inevitably make the amendment, I can see the benefit.

Thanks.