Will my gradient work?

[jamesinyk]

Can I feasibly climb 3cm through the outer tunnel sections above? 

[Dagworth]

How long and heavy are your trains, and what are your locos? 
 

Andi

[Kris]

Your gradients will only work if you are using very short trains or very powerful locos. You are looking at about 1-20 on the inside track and 1-23 on the outside. 

[jamesinyk]

BR Blue era passenger - I have a Dapol 33 so far which will have 3 or 4 Mk1, seeking out a 2-4 car DMU or EMU, maybe a short HST rake if I can find a blue & yellow livery one. 
 

I’d like the straight to bridge a canal ideally. 

[jamesinyk]

Whole layout:

 

 

[Dungrange]

18 minutes ago, jamesinyk said:

I’d like the straight to bridge a canal ideally. 

 

Personally, I'd avoid the gradient and sink the canal into the baseboard - ie lower the canal rather than raise the track.

[Dagworth]

Why does the whole gradient have to be in the tunnel? You could start the climb a lot further back around the curves and have the tunnels part way up. Real tunnels are through hills, you climb up to them (ok not the ones under rivers!) 

 

Andi

[jamesinyk]

7 minutes ago, Dagworth said:

Why does the whole gradient have to be in the tunnel? You could start the climb a lot further back around the curves and have the tunnels part way up. Real tunnels are through hills, you climb up to them (ok not the ones under rivers!) 

 

Andi

I don’t mind where the gradient starts, but not sure there’s space to get back down again!

[DCB]

Sink the canal in.   My lightly ballasted OO Lima  class 37's manage 5 or 6 Mk2s up a 1 in 14 gradient up my garden in the dry but I wouldn't recommend it.  The track plan looks weird, is it your own work?    CJ Freezer has some good plans in his various books, 60 plans for small railways, 60 plans for large railways, 60 plans for railways in the outside loo etc.

[jamesinyk]

2 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

Sink the canal in.   My lightly ballasted OO Lima  class 37's manage 5 or 6 Mk2s up a 1 in 14 gradient up my garden in the dry but I wouldn't recommend it.  The track plan looks weird, is it your own work?    CJ Freezer has some good plans in his various books, 60 plans for small railways, 60 plans for large railways, 60 plans for railways in the outside loo etc.

It is based on an out and back I found, and I added the points bottom left where in the original was just 2 platforms - just to allow continuous running sometimes. 

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, jamesinyk said:

Can I feasibly climb 3cm through the outer tunnel sections above? 

 

I think you need to consider more than just your gradients.  In the above section, your inner curve (ST-12) is shown as being out in the open, yet the next track (ST-15) is in tunnel.  This won't work, as there is not enough space between the two lines to build a rock face or retaining wall without either restricting the end through of a locomotive on the inner track, or the central overhang of a coach on the outer track.  Either all three tracks need to be in tunnel, or you need a greater distance between adjacent tracks if you want to have the arrangement you've shown (ie one track in cutting and a parallel track in tunnel).

 

Also, I note that ST-12 is defined as first radius.  In 00, many modern locomotives are not designed to go around first radius curves in 00, but I'm not sure if this is a similar problem with N gauge, since I don't model in N gauge.

[RJS1977]

Hope you don't mind my saying, but I can see a possible flaw in your track plan.

 

A train starting on the inner loop at the bottom of the plan going anticlockwise will eventually find itself on the outer loop going clockwise. Where does it go after that? There isn't another reversing loop to get it back in an anticlockwise direction again. Or is the siding bottom right a terminal facility of some sort (e.g. a terminating platform where a passenger train can wind up, a new loco goes on the other end and sends it out again)?

 

Also - are those ST12 curves first radius? If so, I would be very wary of using them as most modern locos are designed for a minimum of 2nd radius track.

[jamesinyk]

Yeah I have a tweaked version with a slightly larger footprint and no first radius. And yes the tunnel markings on the diagram are wrong  not bad for a first attempt eh?

[The Johnster]

A canal is lilkely in real life to be at a lower level than railways in it's vicintiy, so I would certainly look at avoiding the need for a gradient at all by sinking it in to the baseboard.  Canals in cuttings or hemmed in by retaining walls are a common feature of industrial urban scenes.  I am a bit confused by the track plan; there's a lot of track but, if I understand things correctly (and it is by no means certain that I do), there is only room for one train to be running at a time, and as it must have a siding to run to, only 3 possible trains on the whole layout, and these will have to be quite short, 3 coaches tops.  No.1 and 2 radius curves will restrict the locos you can use, and the close spacing of tracks on sharp curves top right will mean that even if you could have more than one train running at a time, they would foul on the curves becasue of the coaches' overhanging at the ends and 'underhanging' in the middle.  You'll get away with it using 0-4-0s and 4 wheel coaches, but anything else is pushing it a bit.

 

Personally, I'd rethink it from scratch.  Cyril Freezer's '60 plans for small railways' has been around since dinosaurs roamed the earth, but is I believe still available from Peco.  Many of the layouts in it are very complex and used different levels to give a decent run, but would in practice require an extremely high level of woodworking ability to have a chance of being built and in fact I doubt some of them ever have been, at least not successfully.  But the progression of layouts from a simple BLT to more complex plans will inspire you as to what can be done, what looks railway-like, and provide useful guidance for devising your own plans. 

 

If you are going to stick with this plan, I'd recommend having a facility for a loco to run around a train to change it's direction.  There is room for this by extending the siding off the 'middle road' at bottom right towards the curved point on the reversing loop at bottom left, joining that road with a lh point.  This will extend the operating possibilities, as will moving the crossover in the middle of the bottom siding as far as you can to the left, creating another run around loop.

[jamesinyk]

This is where I got to tinkering with it. I have all the track for it so I will probably give it a go to see how much clearance there is and adjust it a bit accordingly. The idea is just to have something fairly small, with a decent run from station to station (e.g. station -> outer loop -> inner loop -> station) - obviously that can be a bit limiting for multiple running but I've added some more points for the inner section so there's a pair of out-and-back routes. Who knows, it might be terrible but it's just a little introduction to N gauge for now, in a small space. 

 

 

[Dungrange]

There are two locations on that plan, where you appear to have used flexitrack that results in you inadvertently reducing the spacing of the tracks below standard track centres.  That therefore means if you attempt to run two trains in opposite directions trains, they will hit each other.

 

I've marked the problem areas on the figure below.

[jamesinyk]

Thanks, I'll have a look at that. 

[johnd]

Is it me or will there be an electrical polarity problem ! 

[RobinofLoxley]

Its a pity that someone has come on here asking for advice on one thing only to get it in another, but James, this is a common situation. Designing layouts is a tricky business. The more track you try to squeeze into a restricted area the more tricky it usually gets.

9 minutes ago, johnd said:

Is it me or will there be an electrical polarity problem ! 

Switch it on, there may be a loud bang (not really, the controller will just cut out).

 

 

[johnd]

8 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Its a pity that someone has come on here asking for advice on one thing only to get it in another, but James, this is a common situation. Designing layouts is a tricky business. The more track you try to squeeze into a restricted area the more tricky it usually gets.

Switch it on, there may be a loud bang (not really, the controller will just cut out).

 

 

 

Better to find a potential problem at the design stage and sort out the solution before hard track and electrickery  fitting ! 

[RobinofLoxley]

14 minutes ago, johnd said:

 

Better to find a potential problem at the design stage and sort out the solution before hard track and electrickery  fitting ! 

I expect it was a bit of a shock for the OP . But yes. However the concept needs quite a lot of surgery unfortunately

 

James first thing to know is how big is the baseboard, any restrictions on this, then you need to make a list; what am I trying to do, what are my must-haves, like-to-haves, and if-nots its not the end of the worlds.

Edited January 21, 2021 by RobinofLoxley

[RJS1977]

The issue at front right could be resolved by replacing the lower of the two ST-5s with a left hand point, and thus keeping the outer loop along the front edge of the board a little longer. This will also eliminate the wiggle approaching the crossover which would have been likely to cause trouble. You might also at the same time be able to get in another line along the front face of the platform to enable an extra train to be on the layout.

 

I'd also consider adding a short loco spur in the front right corner, and a crossover with two curved points to enable a train leaving the terminal platform(s) to access the inner loop for conventional left-hand running.

 

Something like this might work, though you'd need to trim one of the ST43s to get everything to line up nicely:

 

 

I'd also get rid of the wiggly bit on the loop around the middle terminus for more reliable running.

 

And yes, there is a polarity issue, so you will need to include a pair of insulating rail breaks in the reverse loop section, with the rails switched to the sections either side.

 

Edited January 21, 2021 by RJS1977

[jamesinyk]

Thanks for all the advice, appreciated. 
 

On the polarity point, as I understand it the central loop needs to be isolated and supplied via a reverse loop module (I’m thinking Lenz LK200). Right?! (Crosses fingers)

[RobinofLoxley]

8 minutes ago, jamesinyk said:

Thanks for all the advice, appreciated. 
 

On the polarity point, as I understand it the central loop needs to be isolated and supplied via a reverse loop module (I’m thinking Lenz LK200). Right?! (Crosses fingers)

Right up to a point, no pun intended, you follow your 'loop' and see where it goes, and whether you can work out where to isolate. Better to do all the track revisions first then see whats left at the end

[RobinofLoxley]

39 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

The issue at front right could be resolved by replacing the lower of the two ST-5s with a left hand point, and thus keeping the outer loop along the front edge of the board a little longer. This will also eliminate the wiggle approaching the crossover which would have been likely to cause trouble. You might also at the same time be able to get in another line along the front face of the platform to enable an extra train to be on the layout.

 

I'd also consider adding a short loco spur in the front right corner, and a crossover with two curved points to enable a train leaving the terminal platform(s) to access the inner loop for conventional left-hand running.

 

Something like this might work, though you'd need to trim the two ST2s to get everything to line up nicely:

 

 

I'd also get rid of the wiggly bit on the loop around the middle terminus for more reliable running.

 

And yes, there is a polarity issue, so you will need to include a pair of insulating rail breaks in the reverse loop section, with the rails switched to the sections either side.

Isnt the track spacing still wrong, missing the usual short curve between the two curved points??