Main line terminus in OO

[Zomboid]

What is the helix actually for? It seems to me like it's to connect two layouts which don't need to be connected. You can run tube stock upstairs with a reversing siding behind some station building (just like the real Paddington where the Hammersmith line is at the country end of the station and then runs in a tunnel), and if you really want a tube layout then you could build one on a separate level. As far as I can see there's no need to link the two with an impossible structure.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Zomboid

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your replies. Gordon - I should be very interested in the results of your test. Incidentally, what level separation did you originally use?

[The Stationmaster]

As far as access is concerned many years ago I built a fairly large (in terms of area) layout in my the attic in my parents bungalow.  I was young and flexible so getting underneath to wire it wasn't too much of a problem but it still needed space and i'm not sure how you'd manage that on a double decked layout - but you will inevitably need to access it.

 

 I have relatively long arms so a reasonable reach but parts of the layout were well beyond my reach once I could no longer climb onto the baseboard when i added more track in front of the more remote track I'd laid first - in fact for rail cleaning I had to get outside the insulated area and crawl overs rafters and access the track through a hole cut in the insulation.  Pretty extreme I would agree but never ever forget that the most inaccessible  part of the layout will be the bit where points fail or a derailment occurs, unless you can get up through the bottom of the helix you will never reach a derailment 3 feet away from the accessible side of it, and of course that far side will be where the derailment occurs.  

 

Building it is one thing - whatever people on here might say or you might think - but maintaining it, keeping track clean, and dealing with faults such as broken connections or dry joints that only become apparent once you start running trains is a whole bigger ballgame

[clachnaharry]

It's railway modelling Jim, but not as we know it.

[Denbridge]

As far as access is concerned many years ago I built a fairly large (in terms of area) layout in my the attic in my parents bungalow.  I was young and flexible so getting underneath to wire it wasn't too much of a problem but it still needed space and i'm not sure how you'd manage that on a double decked layout - but you will inevitably need to access it.

 

 I have relatively long arms so a reasonable reach but parts of the layout were well beyond my reach once I could no longer climb onto the baseboard when i added more track in front of the more remote track I'd laid first - in fact for rail cleaning I had to get outside the insulated area and crawl overs rafters and access the track through a hole cut in the insulation.  Pretty extreme I would agree but never ever forget that the most inaccessible  part of the layout will be the bit where points fail or a derailment occurs, unless you can get up through the bottom of the helix you will never reach a derailment 3 feet away from the accessible side of it, and of course that far side will be where the derailment occurs.  

 

Building it is one thing - whatever people on here might say or you might think - but maintaining it, keeping track clean, and dealing with faults such as broken connections or dry joints that only become apparent once you start running trains is a whole bigger ballgame

this is the thrust of what most have us having been saying for 10 pages. Its great to have ambition but this plan is simply not viable all the time that lower area is kept. There are enough areas of potential problems on the top level as it is. However they can be addressed. That bottom layer is a waste of track, timber and time. Sorry James but most experienced modellers are telling you the same thing.

[Fenman]

I am not sure that I have that many cornflake packets.

 

Best not to bother then. I think you should go ahead and have it professionally built in wood. Then you can test empirically in real-world conditions.

 

Paul

[gordon s]

I don't really recall.  If you want to start my layout thread from page 1 it may well give you an idea.  I'm guessing at least 400mm, but there were numerous differences you your own layout. The main difference is that the helix is a massive spiral running round the room, rather than in one concentrated area.

 

The first thing is that the layout that starts on page 1 was not my first attempt to build a layout.  It was probably my third or fourth.

 

Long before the versions you can see in my ET thread there were several versions of complex multi level layouts.  I'm horrified looking at these pics by the standard of track laying and the pretty awful woodwork and track bed. The comment that track laying doesn't need any skill still sticks in my mind as nothing could be further from the truth.  Laying track badly (as in these pics) was easy.  What you don't know of course is the sheer frustration as trains ran like they were on a roller coaster and couplings came apart with the rise an fall of adjacent wagons. Then you have the various derailments and having to dismantle a big chunk of the layout when one of the Tillig turnouts failed.

 

Never again.  Here's some pics that few have ever seen.  They are in my chamber of horrors.

 

 

 

 

 

With all these pics the upper levels containing the terminus were still to be fitted and they would have been full width like your own.  There was a helix of sorts.  The tracks ran around the room with a continual gradient from the lower level to the top.  The gradients were typically 1:50 which were OK for multi axle diesel loco's but steam loco's really struggled with seven coach trains with a gradient that ran for something like 200' with many, many twists and turns.  Look closely as these pics and see just how difficult it was to access the pointwork to the storage yards, even without the top level in place.

 

Of course at this time, I knew best and ignored most of the advice I was given.  I did manage to get some things running, but then a few things went wrong and it was a nightmare trying to get in there and correct wiring faults and derailments.  I guess there were three of four levels with an overall difference between the top level (that never got built) and the lowest level of around 500-600mm.

 

Look at the amount of track, turnouts and ply, most of which went in the bin.  I spend months on my back under the lowest board fitting computer automation and I lost count the number of times molten solder dropped on my bare arms, legs and head.  The lowest board was just out of comfortable reach when lying on the floor, so I was having to prop myself up and then solder from a very uncomfortable position.

 

Still convinced I knew better, I pushed on and ploughed more time and money into this bottomless pit.  Eventually it was scrapped and new versions were started, each with their own problems of hidden tracks, gradients and tons of trackwork.  Even within my current ET thread which started 10 years ago there are at least four versions to this date.  It's not as though I'm an incompetent builder.  I'm lucky enough to have a double garage converted into a workshop with decent woodworking machinery.  I build my own track and have a knowledge of basic electrics so know how to wire a layout and trace a short.  Without those skills, who knows where I'd be with an imagination that completely outstrips skill levels.

 

It's taken thousands of pounds and around 15 years of my life for the penny to drop and I now know there are no shortcuts in building a layout that will perform well and be very reliable. One where access is easy and if something fails, it can be repaired without dismantling large areas or multiple levels to access a failed tie bar or switch blade.

 

I had hoped I wouldn't have to revisit this early attempt at layout building, but sometimes pics are the only way to show what others are trying to explain.

Edited March 2, 2018 by gordon s

[Denbridge]

I don't really recall.  If you want to start my layout thread from page 1 it may well give you an idea.  I'm guessing at least 400mm, but there were numerous differences you your own layout. The main difference is that the helix is a massive spiral running round the room, rather than in one concentrated area.

 

The first thing is that the layout that starts on page 1 was not my first attempt to build a layout.  It was probably my third or fourth.

 

Long before the versions you can see in my ET thread there were several versions of complex multi level layouts.  I'm horrified looking at these pics by the standard of track laying and the pretty awful woodwork and track bed. The comment that track laying doesn't need any skill still sticks in my mind as nothing could be further from the truth.  Laying track badly (as in these pics) was easy.  What you don't know of course is the sheer frustration as trains ran like they were on a roller coster and couplings came apart with the rise an fall of adjacent wagons. Then you have the various derailments and having to dismantle a big chunk of the layout when one of the Tillig turnouts failed.

 

Never again.  Here's some pics that few have ever seen.  They are in my chamber of horrors.

 

IMG_0905.jpg

 

IMG_0870.jpg

 

IMG_1112.jpg

 

IMG_1321.jpg

 

With all these pics the upper levels containing the terminus were still to be fitted and they would have been full width like your own.  There was a helix of sorts.  The tracks ran around the room with a continual gradient from the lower level to the top.  The gradients were typically 1:50 which were OK for multi axle diesel loco's but steam loco's really struggled with seven coach trains with a gradient that ran for something like 200' with many, many twists and turns.  Look closely as these pics and see just how  difficult it was to access the pointwork to the storage yards, even without the top level in place.

 

Of course at this time, I knew best and ignored most of the advice I was given.  I did manage to get some things running, but then a few things went wrong and it was a nightmare trying to get in there and correct wiring faults and derailments.  I guess there were three of four levels with an overall difference between the top level (that never got built) and the lowest level of around 500-600mm.

 

Look at the amount of track, turnouts and ply, most of which went in the bin.  I spend months on my back under the lowest board fitting computer automation and I lost count the number of times molten solder dropped on my bare arms, legs and head.  The lowest board was just out of comfortable reach when lying on the floor, so I was having to prop myself up and then solder from a very uncomfortable position.

 

Still convinced I knew better, I pushed on and ploughed more time and money into this bottomless pit.  Eventually it was scrapped and new versions were started, each with their own problems of hidden tracks, gradients and tons of trackwork.  Even within my current ET thread which started 10 years ago there are at least four versions to this date.  It's not as though I'm an incompetent builder.  I'm lucky enough to have a double garage converted into a workshop with decent woodworking machinery.  I build my own track and have a knowledge of basic electrics so know how to wire a layout and trace a short.  Without those skills, who knows where I'd be with an imagination that completely outstrips skill levels.

 

It's taken thousands of pounds and around 15 years of my life for the penny to drop and I now know there are no shortcuts in building a layout that will perform well and be very reliable.  One where access is easy and if something fails, it can be repaired without dismantling large areas or multiple levels to access a failed tie bar or switch blade.

 

I had hoped I wouldn't have to revisit this early attempt at layout building, but sometimes pics are the only way to show what others are trying to explain.

it should be noted that in these pictures even the most diffucult areas of access would be easy compared to what James is contemplating. I recently discovered your thread and am full of admiration for your baseboard and track laying skills. And your determination to get what you want. I hope james will finally realise what is possible/practical as well as learning from your and others (costly) mistakes.

[Pete the Elaner]

 

It's taken thousands of pounds and around 15 years of my life for the penny to drop and I now know there are no shortcuts in building a layout that will perform well and be very reliable.  One where access is easy and if something fails, it can be repaired without dismantling large areas or multiple levels to access a failed tie bar or switch blade.

This is true for many of us: We think we can succeed where somebody else failed, then it takes us time to realise that we can't & the modeller who gave us the original advice was actually better than we thought.

We all get to a point with the layout when the only way to fix the annoying issues is to scrap the layout & start again.

 

I completely agree with Gordon's comment regarding what you now think is ok will soon look disappointing as your modelling skills develop. These will become some of the items on your 'list of annoying issues'.

With a smaller design, it is possible to scrap it & start again, correcting all of these in the process.

This is true of all aspects: woodwork, track laying, electrics, buildings, scenery.

['CHARD]

Hi, I'm 'Chard and I'm attending this meeting of Layout Planners Anonymous because I just can't stop my over-ambitious schemes for my 'last big one,' that will be started - honest - when I'm happy with the man cave (as yet unbuilt). 

 

I'm not being flippant, because truly I am as guilty as the best armchair layout planner (at the moment, although I do have an active workbench again) of over-ambitious dreaming and doodling of my dream scheme.  

 

But what Gordon has laid bare there, quite poignantly and painfully in the raw, is a far more advanced and complex version of something I had rigged up in the loft when the children were young.  No photos exist, although the baseboards remain in situ, repurposed for storage of tat.  It was the second attempt at a loosely West Midlands-themed folded figure of eight, which accessibility effectively killed off, because I simply could not commit enough time to keep it running consistently, and eventually loss of morale set-in.  Even in a decent size loft, the gradients combined with reverse curves that meant I wasn't even able to indulge in my favourite restorative pastime, of watching trains roll by at prototypical speeds.  Because only an old Mainline 56 could be trusted to perform sufficiently well to achieve this seemingly modest task.

 

I restarted in the garage, a duck-under to access soon replacing a hinged section, and a hidden incline (why was it hidden? - because it was unrealistically steep) to access an upper branch terminus above a set of curved hidden staging loops.  Over-complexity again soon allowed in the gremlin of unreliability, and access issues resulted in the scaling-back of operation so that the worst performing parts of the network could be avoided.  I ripped out the remains of that layout last summer to create storage space after a change in family circumstances.

 

So what am I planning now, in a space that probably amounts to 9' x 25'? A twin track tail chaser, homage to a secondary main line.  A main line known for its ruling gradients of 1:75 and long inter-yard freights, cartrains and sparse passenger service.  Am I having gradients - No, I will simulate these by scenic methods.  Am I having points?  Trailing crossovers will be included in the initial plan, but they will be purely cosmetic, switched out and hardwired to avoid collection and conduct problems.  If I do run to a station, the goods yard will be prototypically lifted.  

 

What am I saying - less is more.  I know this is at the absolute opposite end of the scale from what is planned here at and under Paddington, but I am resolved to strive for absolute simplicity because decades of experience has taught me that over ambition brings dejection and loss of mojo.  And in my case ushered in other interests, like writing and performing live music - so maybe the learning experience wasn't without merit, as modelling's loss (as if!) is rock's gain (yeah, really   ) .

Edited March 2, 2018 by 'CHARD

[Chimer]

Leaving the greater debate (!) on one side, I offer some comments on the latest plan (#180) regarding the upper level fiddle yards:

 

1.  I can see from the inclusion of those diamonds bottom left that you have paired the four-track main line by speed, i.e. from the inside down main, up main, down relief, up relief.  So you need the diamonds to make the loops return a down relief on the up relief.  The prospect of conflicting movements across the diamonds are going to add excitement and complications to your automation of the return loops.  Have you considered instead pairing by direction, i.e. down relief, down main, up main, up relief, which would mean the diamonds are not required?  Or does that just impact too much on your idea of prototype fidelity?

 

2.  I can just about see the point of the pair of crossovers on the tracks leading to the return loops between the carriage sidings and the fiddle yard - they let you switch a train from main line to relief line, or vice versa, if you really want/need to.  But I cannot see any reason for the crossover (with another exciting diamond!) on the left hand side after the fiddle yard exit, which just allows a train to switch back from relief to main.  I reckon these options would further confuse the (electronic) logic of any fiddle yard automation.

 

3.  Finally, I would recommend you make every effort to make all main FY loops the same length, and all relief FY loops the same (shorter) length.  Because otherwise, assuming the default situation will see every FY loop occupied, if you run a train into the station from the shortest loop, the next departure (which surely won't be the same train) must be short enough to fit into the now empty loop - another probably unwelcome constraint / consideration for your automation.  Best done in the way Phil has laid out the left hand set of loops in his plan in your N gauge thread (#54) - you can afford the tracks leaving the FY in your #180 plan a few inches "north" of where you have them at present.

 

All the best

 

Chris

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your feedback. As ever, the specific details are useful, whereas the more generalised exhortations to be less complex in general or general assertions that what I have designed will not work (without any clue as to how to discern the closest thing to what I have designed that will work, and why the threshold is there rather than anywhere else) are less useful, as I can only sensibly plan within specific constraints. It is impossible to optimise within non-specific constraints.

 

As already noted, the plan is for the helix to have an access from beneath. I do not think that anyone has actually given me any real idea of numbers for level separation and how any degree of level separation actually makes a difference. I should also note that the idea that I have a great amount of "hidden" track seems to have persisted, even though I have made clear that fiddle yard track on the lower level is no more hidden (apart, possibly, from having a curtain of some sort which could easily be moved out of the way) than track on the upper level.

 

One possibility that might be contemplated is to have a greater separation between the upper and lower levels of this layout than between the upper level of this layout and the N gauge layout above, but to have that modularised into perhaps 3-4 sections and readily demountable.

 

Paul: in relation to your layout, what was the depth at the main flat part of the fiddle yard? What was the diagonal to corner distance? It looks as though all of those slightly higher level tracks would readily block access to the rear yards beyond, whereas the plan for this layout is for two essentially flat areas with a substantial separation between them, connected only by an open sided and open bottomed helix at one end. I did look at your thread briefly, but since it was 143 pages long, realised that I could not sensibly read the whole thing, and could not easily find the most important parts. If you could direct me to them, that would be useful.

 

Edit: As to the slow/fast pairings, they are paired by use on both the Great Western Mainline and the Midland Mainline (two of the areas that this layout could represent), so it would be odd to have them paired by direction in this layout. It would also be harder to design the station, since, at present, the relief lines feed the slow platforms and the main lines the main platforms.

Edited March 2, 2018 by jamespetts

[mightbe]

Gordon and Chard laid themselves bare, with admirable honesty and pathos, admitting to missteps and addressing the fundamental flaws common to their failed projects and the proposed design.

 

Now we're back to asking about trivialities and trivial numbers.

 

Well, since you know best. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by mightbe

[jamespetts]

Mightbe - that is not a constructive or helpful response. What purpose do you think that that serves?

 

Being able to understand the actual nature and degree of the various constraints to which people are referring is not "trivial": it is absolutely necessary if I am to have any use out of what is being suggested at all.

[mightbe]

I don't say this to be mean, but the crux of the problem seems to be that you have no basic grasp of how successful model railways are designed or indeed how to design from the ground-up, rather than just executing a series of small permutations on a given theme. The flaws of the layout are thus fundamental (largely), not a matter of inches here and there. That is what I and everyone else have been getting at with all this "conflicting data"; the degree of unworkability depends on perspective, but the consensus remains that the plan isn't workable.

 

(On the other hand the N gauge layout and its fiddle yard in particular look quite decent; by no coincidence it has now been through experienced hands.)

 

My advice for this layout is to go back to a clean canvas and try it again; that usually helps since you know roughly what the goal is but have the freedom to do it better.

Edited March 2, 2018 by mightbe

[Denbridge]

You ask but you dont listen. Youve had it explained over and over why the WHOLE concept of your lower level will not work. Since you do not listen to sound advice just get on with it and learn the hard way.

[Junctionmad]

I’ll restate my experience , hidden track work is a nightmare , this includes any track work you physically cannot get your whole body over. Even 60 cm height clearance is tight , and 60 cm will look daft

 

There is also no need for a two layer fiddle yard , fiddle yards are not prototypical why not combine them into a single yard.

 

The advice ( amongst ) is to drop the idea of the two levels , I suggest you heed that advice in my opinion

[jamespetts]

Incidentally, Chimer/Chris - I missed your points 2 and 3 earlier. I have just spent some time attempting to implement your suggestion no. 3, but I cannot get the geometary to work out on the bottom left hand corner: there is not space to have the various crossings without making the curve radii there too tight.

 

As to no. 2, the idea of these crossovers is that they allow a train in the main storage yards to enter on the relief lines.

 

Edit: My posts crossed with Denbridge's and Junctionmad's above posts.

 

Denbridge, it seems that you are the one who does not listen: I have stated repeatedly that bland generalisations are worthless, yet you repeat bland generalisations ever more emphatically. That is not constructive or helpful. Merely stating that "it will not work" tells me nothing about how to know the precise parameters of what does and does not work so that I can plan something that does work, nor does it assist me at all to resolve the conflict between your advice/information and that of other sources. Your more specific contributions have been very useful. Please do not mar that by demanding unquestioning deference to the generalities that you assert.

 

Junctionmad - the reason that I do not combine the upper and lower fiddle yards is that there is not space to do so: either for enough tracks in the fiddle yards, or for the necessary gradients/helices.

 

It really does not assist to repeat over and over that you do not think that the lower level will work without explaining the reasons, and, where the information that you give in support of your reasons conflicts with other sources, give me some empirical basis (or accept that there is none) for preferring your view/information over that from other sources. Without that, I am not equipped to make an independent decision, and you are simply demanding unquestioning deference, which is not helpful at all.

Edited March 3, 2018 by jamespetts

[Junctionmad]

If I can offer any advice for a 21st Century modeller, (and I’m so very sorry admins!!) - don’t waste hours on the likes of RMWeb and social media, just spend that time doing modelling! I find it far too easy to waste valuable free time these days when you can be doing something productive instead of being online, just get out in that new shed, get something running, tinker around and have some fun!!

 

 

Using computerized planning tools that accurately lay out track is the single biggest advance in the hobby . I meticulously plan layouts , ultimately resulting in full sized paper templates where I can align baseboard members to avoid pointwork , cut flexitrack to length beforehand etc. I use tools like templot to plan whole layouts wit’s transistion curves ( something SCARM can’t do btw ) And I transfer that into 2D and 3 D CAD to generate baseboard structures and wiring diagrams

 

Building any layout other then a trivial GWR BLT , , and especially any sort of large layout needs such planing , things like layout automation , DCC power districts , block / occupation detection , point motor positioning , etc all need to be considered in advance . the most common issue I see on badly prepared layout design is rework or abrupt changes in plan as a result of build issues coming to light.

 

Suck it and see , is grand for trivial designs, it’s a disaster for complex layouts. How many times I see people building baseboards without consideration for the trsckplsn for example or ridiculously modifying such track work to then suit such ill conceived baseboards.

 

Social media provides a fasttrack to knowledge acquisition , it’s very useful, the main issue is extracting the valid data from the noise , because a lot of feedback is anecdotal in nature.

 

The OP is right to offer his plans for scrutiny , it’s a very big complex layout and time spent now pondering the design is very valuable. But the caveat is one must be prepared to consider your cherished “ baby” may in fact have many unworkable solutions and to ensure there are no “sacred cows”

Edited March 3, 2018 by Junctionmad

[jamespetts]

Junctionmad - I agree. Although computer software at its current state of advancement might not automatically prevent all layout design flaws, it certainly prevents some and enforces the geometary much more effectively than sketching a track plan with pen and paper ever could. I have found the tool invaluable.

 

As to your last paragraph, as I have stated before many times, I am willing to consider any advice (as can be empirically demonstrated by the extent to which I have in fact changed the layout in response to that advice): but being willing to take advice is not the same as the unquestioning deference to advice, especially non-specific advice, that some appear to demand.

Edited March 3, 2018 by jamespetts

[Junctionmad]

It really does not assist to repeat over and over that you do not think that the lower level will work without explaining the reasons, and, where the information that you give in support of your reasons conflicts with other sources, give me some empirical basis (or accept that there is none) for preferring your view/information over that from other sources. Without that, I am not equipped to make an independent decision, and you are simply demanding unquestioning deference, which is not helpful at all.

 

 

short of me providing you with a full 3D mock-up , which I can do, but won’t , you have two choices , accept other people’s view or ignore then and learn the hard way

 

I will restate the experience , hidden track should be avoided , where inescapable , minimized

 

Gradients should be avoided , where inescapable , be straight , with at least 1:50

 

Two layer baseboards , where the lower layer is significantly covered or obstructed , ie by more then 10 %, are a nightmare to maintain , having a deep structure with another 1 foot or so above it , is simply terrible to access , again 3D mockups will show this , but I’m not going to put the hours in, so we’re back to opinion.

 

 

I won’t even comment on the helix

 

If you are intent on this layout, then I suggest you plan out wiring , point motor access, automation requirements , do 2D and 3D drawings to establish access and baseboard positioning, helix design etc, the hundreds of hours so needed will be a useful indicator of your stamina and commitment

 

That’s the only way to answer all your questions , cause the rest of us , certainly aren’t going to do it for you

Edited March 3, 2018 by Junctionmad

[jamespetts]

Junctionmad, there is no reason to believe that there can be no middle ground between, on the one hand, a full 3D mock-up, and, on the other, just providing some (even approximate) quantification of the specific constraints to which you implicitly refer. I have asked specifically about the extent of level separation necessary quite a number of times now, and have had no clear response (and such responses as I have had have been inconsistent with other sources, and I have not had, despite asking, any explanation of why the views of those expressed here should be preferred to other sources).

 

There is repeated reference to "hidden track". Every time that this is referred to, I point out that there will be very little track that is hidden. Every time that I do so, this is totally ignored, and a few posts later, reference is again made to "hidden track" without reference to what I wrote previously. Do you think that track  is "hidden" merely because it is on a baseboard below another level? If so, does this depend on the height separation? If not, that is absurd. If so, what degree of height separation makes the lower level "hidden", and why this number in particular?

 

Again, as to the helix, I have had (and specifically referred to, with links) conflicting information on this. Instead of trying to engage with the conflicting information, you and some others appear to do no more than demand in positively aggressive tones that I unquestioningly defer to your view. I will not unquestioningly defer to anyone's view about anything, ever. It would not be rational to do so, especially in the face of conflicting information. I will consider people's views and the reasons for them and make an independent judgment based on those reasons and such other information available to me about the underlying merits of those views. If you want to persuade me that your views are correct, you will only succeed in doing so by providing a specific empirical and reasoned basis for doing so. The more that you demand that I accept that you are correct without doing so, the more that I will be wary of taking anything that you say seriously.

 

In terms of planning wiring and point motor access, what sort of planning had you in mind? For example, what do you think that planning point motor access entails? Do you do this for your own layouts? If so, it would be helpful to have a description of what you do. Likewise the wiring - do you mean a schematic wiring diagram, or a geographical plan of wiring runs? I was considering preparing a schematic wiring diagram at some point, but I think that I will need to know more precisely how some of the components work in order to do so in a useful way. Again, do you do this for your own layouts? If so, it would again be helpful to know the techniques and systems that you use for this.

 

Edit: Incidentally, it really is very important from a practical perspective to understand precisely the reasons that it is asserted that the lower level will not work. If the problem is the vertical separation between that and the upper level, this can be solved by abandoning the N gauge layout if necessary and increasing the vertical separation (although, of course, I will need to know to a reasonable degree of precision what degree of vertical separation is necessary in order to implement that degree of vertical separation). If the problem is the helix, then this can simply be tested empirically; if this really does not work, then the layout would not need very great changes to separate upper and lower levels as some have suggested, but it would seem silly not even to try when this can fairly easily be changed after the fact and when the information as to whether it is likely to work is conflicting.

Edited March 3, 2018 by jamespetts

[Dagworth]

Any track that you do not have full and clear access to is "hidden". Your boards are planned at a meter wide, there will be times when you need to climb on the baseboard to get at the tracks at the back. if you don't have enough height to sit/kneel on the board then you will have problems. 

 

I gave you some very good advise regarding testing your helix plans with a circle of set-track, a train and some inclined piers. You have ignored it. THAT IS HOW YOU GET DATA, Test, trial... In your job you should know that trial is everything.

 

Learn from the experience of others, we are telling you things won't work because we've been there.

 

A very old adage, don't try to run before you can walk. You have a long long way to learn to walk...

 

This is the only way I've found FROM EXPERIENCE to deal with hidden track, under this board is pointwork for the entrance to the one of my fiddleyards.

 

The entire top deck of the board is made detachable, half a dozen screws and it can be lifted clean off. Then you have access to the pointwork beneath

 

 

Andi

[jamespetts]

Dagworth - can you elaborate on what exactly "full and clear access" is? Are you referring to a particular degree of distance from the edge of the baseboard to the back of the baseboard? Are you referring to vertical separation between multiple levels? Without being able to quantify this, I am really not in any position to do anything meaningful about it.

 

Incidentally, putting things in capital letters will not persuade me. It will make me less likely to accept what you are claiming, as I have found (through your favoured experience) that people who, when pressed for detail or explanations, respond by emphatically repeating the original point without detail or explanations usually do so because they are unable to provide detail or explanations because their claims are unfounded.

 

In relation to testing helices, I may yet do that - whether I use those specific piers I am not sure, but I have not dismissed the idea of testing gradients/helices at all.

[Junctionmad]

Yes , I do plan my wiring , I also do track plans to full size and then convert to Dxf and use this to plan baseboards , i use templot , draftsight and fusion360 , I don’t touch ply until I know where every rail break is , where every point tie bar is . I just finished a large O gauge design ( were in the middle of building it ) for my club, I printed out 400 a4 templates , cellotaoec then and laid the whole thing out in full size to check stock clearances , baseboard positioning etc

 

I do geographical wiring diagrams in cad( usually in sections ) , I don’t bother with schematics unless it’s for custom electronics or the interior wiring of certain junction boxes , I ultimately develop an excel point to point numbering system for the wiring , that I can then transfer to the layout as I wire it.

 

Then I make test structures of anything I’m unsure about , my baseboards are 6mm ply box designs , fibreglassed tape and resin joints , so again test boards were made

 

Even with that mistakes get made !!

 

To try and give you my experience in hard numbers , any track work where it’s impossible to get your whole torso comfortably ( note ) , over the trackwork you intend to work on , with enough room to manlipulate a typical portable drill , will make maintenance a nightmare

 

Keyhole surgery is best left to surgeons !

 

Hence whether that’s 30 cm , 60cm or whatever is entirely up to,you. my answer is based on MY experience . In your case either build a mock-up , or create a 3D model to determine what’s acceptable , what’s stupid is arguing with us , where we have personal experience and you don’t.