Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Newbie2020 said:

 

I did look at this one from CJF but was put off by the second level for the BLT. In the space available that would seem like a pretty steep incline? Some of the incline articles I've read seem to infer that inclines high enough to cross over a rail line are only achievable with long straight runs?

 

CJF Layout.JPG

 

I'd not be too concerned about the gradients for two reasons.  Firstly you've more space to achieve the necessary clearance. Secondly your trains are relatively short so not so much drag. And the third of my two reasons :rolleyes: is that you can continue the gradient onto a curve - just not quite as severely as on a straight bit of track.

I'd make the point motors on the BLT surface mounted so as not to foul anything running underneath.

And I'd use that stub extension as a low level fiddle yard to allow trains to disappear off stage completely. 

I'd also make the top level BLT removable for track maintenance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AndyB said:

 

I'd not be too concerned about the gradients for two reasons.  Firstly you've more space to achieve the necessary clearance. Secondly your trains are relatively short so not so much drag. And the third of my two reasons :rolleyes: is that you can continue the gradient onto a curve - just not quite as severely as on a straight bit of track.

I'd make the point motors on the BLT surface mounted so as not to foul anything running underneath.

And I'd use that stub extension as a low level fiddle yard to allow trains to disappear off stage completely. 

I'd also make the top level BLT removable for track maintenance.

 

I like that idea. but this is starting to sound complicated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how high would the raised section for the BLT have to be? I'm thinking with the fiddle yard underneath it would require enough room to handle rolling stock, enable track maintenance etc? Would I gain enough to balance the increase in complexity?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Newbie2020 said:

So how high would the raised section for the BLT have to be? I'm thinking with the fiddle yard underneath it would require enough room to handle rolling stock, enable track maintenance etc? Would I gain enough to balance the increase in complexity?

 

 

I think your two level section would be along the back wall, so you wouldn't be doing much fiddling.  You'd need to have the top section removable so that you could access any issue in the rear loop and for maintenance.

 

Ideally you'd have to keep the height difference as little as possible - something line 3" between the lower baseboard surface and the upper level if possible so that you have a maximum gradient that's no more than around 1:30, but preferably 1:40.  If you're interested in a two level layout, it may be worthwhile having a look at another thread where someone has a similar size for a layout and looking for similar ideas.

 

There is no perfect solution, you just need to try and make sure that the things you compromise on are the things you are happy to compromise on and that you achieve whatever is most important to you.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Newbie2020 said:

I did look at this one from CJF but was put off by the second level for the BLT. In the space available that would seem like a pretty steep incline? Some of the incline articles I've read seem to infer that inclines high enough to cross over a rail line are only achievable with long straight runs?

 

There's an Anyrail version of it in this post and someone built something similar here.  The Anyrail plan uses first radius curves and the other needed to be considerably larger than the published 8'x4' to avoid just that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, AndyB said:

And I'd use that stub extension as a low level fiddle yard to allow trains to disappear off stage completely

 

In which case the loop below the station could perhaps be left out and the curves eased?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Newbie2020 said:

So how high would the raised section for the BLT have to be? I'm thinking with the fiddle yard underneath it would require enough room to handle rolling stock, enable track maintenance etc? Would I gain enough to balance the increase in complexity?

 

 

You'd not do any actual fiddling under the BLT. And as Flying Pig menations you'd remove the loop shown in the CJF plan. 

All the fiddling would be done in the open air on the stub board.

I think the major gains area a more realistic station - the one shown is quite generic and could be tweaked. You gain a fiddle yard allowing trains to go "somewhere". The fiddle yard also gives you capacity for more rolling stock, of which we all end up with too much! You'd also be able to run trains to a timetable which gives added interest.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
33 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I would humbly suggest that gradients on a first layout might be a bit ambitious, though I've no idea how confident the OP would be with the carpentry etc.

Absolutely agree. Keep it Simple.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I would humbly suggest that gradients on a first layout might be a bit ambitious, though I've no idea how confident the OP would be with the carpentry etc.

 

My concern too! My carpentry skills are basic!

 

I think I'm sticking to just one level for the moment, think there are enough challenges all round without complicating things.

  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope someone is still following this thread!

 

with going for DCC I want to go with electrofrog turnouts. Is there a direct alternative to Peco setrtack turnout that is electrofrog? The electrofrog points I see in streamline seem to have completely different geometry? Does this mean it's back to square one with the layout design?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/08/2020 at 10:53, Newbie2020 said:

I think I'm sticking to just one level for the moment, think there are enough challenges all round without complicating things.

 

I think that's the correct decision - my first layout on a 6' x 4' baseboard had gradients and was soon scrapped in favour of a shelf round the wall.  The layout that I'm now building will have no gradients either.

 

Just now, Newbie2020 said:

Hope someone is still following this thread!

 

with going for DCC I want to go with electrofrog turnouts. Is there a direct alternative to Peco settrack turnout that is electrofrog? The electrofrog points I see in streamline seem to have completely different geometry? Does this mean it's back to square one with the layout design?

 

As far as I'm ware, Set track points are all Insulfrog (both Peco and Hornby).  I think Electrofrog is only available in the streamline range, which as you have pointed out uses different geometry.  In some respects, it is back to the drawing board in terms of the precise geometry, but hopefully you have a better idea of what you are trying to create that will provide the operational interest that you are looking for.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The short streamline point is approximately 24" radius against 17.5" for Set-track, and turns out 12 degrees rather than 22.5.  The diamonds match the turnout angles.  Assuming you still intend to use set-track curves to get round the sharp corners (strongly recommended), you may need to cut some down if you use a Streamline point as part of the curve.  The return loops will take up a little more space and the return loop designs which included a diamond next to a point may become impossible, and will certainly squeeze the space available above the loop for whatever you want to put there.  But you will also save some space as parallel tracks normally come out closer together (2" plays 2.625") which looks better, especially in stations with two platforms.

 

You can see some of the differences if you nip back to my "version 3" which use both .....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

I'm sure it's possible to do the whole design in Streamline without needing to do anything too drastic - IF the main circuit is single track.

 

The turnouts don't have to be in the tight end curves - in fact they can help the transitions between curves and straight like this:

newb1.png.2984fbc6f3fff11050ef7cc6aeadfa45.png

(The red circle is a guideline for an R2 curve. The green turnout is Streamline HO/OO curved left.)

 

I'm drawing something up. Might have something to show later today.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Got a chance to have a play using streamline 100 so I can use electrofrog. Seemed to be going ok until I ran out of baseboard! Also struggling to get any sidings into the Warehouse/industrial area. As this is where most of the shunting will be this is arguably where elctrofrogs would be most useful!

Layout4.9Electrofrog.JPG

Edited by Newbie2020
Link to post
Share on other sites

Insul vs Electrofrogs and shunting.

Ideally, yes, go for electrofrogs to avoid locos stalling.

However, I believe you mentioned you were going down the DCC route, in which case you may find that a dcc decoder with a "stay alive" capacitor would help.  These capacitors provide enough juice storage to help locos over electrical dead zones.

 

Looking forward to seeing what Phil comes up with later!  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just did a little exercise combining an SLE-87 curved point with r3 Setrack in order to see what length and radius of SL-100 would be needed to complete a 180 degree turn.

 

While the tracks diverge at 12 degrees, the radius (if my calculations are correct) of each is 7 degrees outer and 19 degrees inner. That might already be obvious to some here, but I often like to take the long route to finding things out, hence the illustration below. 

 

Gra.

 

 

Streamline Curved Geometry.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
15 minutes ago, OhOh said:

Just did a little exercise combining an SLE-87 curved point with r3 Setrack in order to see what length and radius of SL-100 would be needed to complete a 180 degree turn.

 

While the tracks diverge at 12 degrees, the radius (if my calculations are correct) of each is 7 degrees outer and 19 degrees inner. That might already be obvious to some here, but I often like to take the long route to finding things out, hence the illustration below. 

 

Gra.

 

 

Streamline Curved Geometry.jpg

 

8 degrees outer and 20 degrees inner.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

https://www.enigon.com/raily/modules/en/ho_peco_streaml._code_100.html#_  states that they are 6.85 degrees for the outer track and 18.81 degrees for the inner track, so closer to 7 and 19.

Thanks. It was looking for, but not being able to find that info that set me off on the exercise in the first place. That and the fact that similar to the OP, I may include some SL points into my otherwise ST designed future layout.

 

Gra.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
42 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

https://www.enigon.com/raily/modules/en/ho_peco_streaml._code_100.html#_  states that they are 6.85 degrees for the outer track and 18.81 degrees for the inner track, so closer to 7 and 19.

 

Hmmm, OK. They seem like very odd angles so I guess they are measured from actual parts which may have some tolerance and variability.

 

I can't remember now where I got my info from so I'll have to do a bit more research.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they were 6 & 18 because that's 6 degrees either side of the 12 that their straight points are. Isn't the long Y 6 per side, the short Y 12 per side and the short crossing 24?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hmmm, OK. They seem like very odd angles so I guess they are measured from actual parts which may have some tolerance and variability.

 

I can't remember now where I got my info from so I'll have to do a bit more research.

 

I did quickly try the 8/20 degrees in Anyrail by reducing the SL100 curves by 1 degree, but then found that any subsequently attached straight track started heading off towards the edge of the baseboard.

In reality, I doubt that 1 degree +/- would make a huge difference so long as at least one of the entry/exit points of the turn are aligned correctly to begin with. Any small discrepancy would hardy be noticeable by using less (or no)  ST and a longer length of SL100 within the turn.

Gra.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.