Main line terminus in OO

[Harlequin]

Possible construction for a simple lower level:

 

 

The idea would be to find a place, or create a place, on the main level where the tracks move away from the edge of the board and inset your underground cutting in that location, as part of the station complex.

 

The open framework supporting the lower level allows you reach the lower level tracks (with difficulty) and the underside of the main level.

 

Keep the lower level very simple - little more than a single or double track circuit with any pointwork as near the front as possible for easy access. Probably no track connected to the main level at all.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Harlequin

[Denbridge]

Possible construction for a simple lower level:

 

JP OO 1.png

 

The idea would be to find a place, or create a place, on the main level where the tracks move away from the edge of the board and inset your underground cutting in that location, as part of the station complex.

 

The open framework supporting the lower level allows you reach the lower level tracks (with difficulty) and the underside of the main level.

 

Keep the lower level very simple - little more than a single or double track circuit with any pointwork as near the front as possible for easy access. Probably no track connected to the main level at all.

Another point to consider. Where is the underground stock for the proposed era going to come from? this would only be achievable through Kit and scratch building. Even a very simple plan as suggested would require a minimum of 2 trains. Is there the skill set/will to build these. And James original plan will require 20 or more sets. 

[njee20]

I think you've made your point that you think he's a madman and should build a shunting plank instead!

 

Phil's cross sectional plan looks excellent - I agree with him that anything other than very simple covered track is asking for trouble. Stuff stalling will be enough of an irritation (as it'll be hard to clean the track that's probably quite likely), but having to align and wire up point motors, let along dealing with a derailment when one occurs at some point will be a massive pain.

[jamespetts]

Junctionmad - extrapolating for a moment from the very useful data point of the club layout: 300ft of track, for wiring and laying, took 12 person months. I work in meters, so I will convert this to meters (approximately, since we can only get approximate numbers out of this in any event). I will thus assume 12 person months per 100m, or ~2.5 person days per meter of track, laid and wired with DCC assuming prefabricated track and electrofrog points. (Of course, this does not take into account overhead, or differentiate between plain track or points, nor take into account different levels of experience, etc., so this is very approximate indeed, but it is all that I have so far by way of data). To check this calibration, does this seem broadly (as in within a factor of 2 either side) consistent with other people's experiences?

 

This of course assumes a(n approximately) linear relationship between track length and time spent. It could in principle be either exponential or logarithmic, but, with one data point, I cannot infer which of them applies from the timing data alone, and have to attempt to infer it from what I know about the nature of the task itself, which suggests an approximately linear relationship between the number of points/signals and time spent (how many points were on the club layout, do you know?), subject to certain fixed overheads of time (setting up controllers, etc.). If anyone has any information to suggest differently, that would be most helpful.

 

Having inferred a very approximate rate, the next step would be to extrapolate that rate to the two layouts that I am currently planning, which I will not be able to do until I get home and have access to SCARM to calculate the total trackage length and then multiply that by the rate and my estimate of a margin of error to get a range of construction times, assuming that this one data point is at least approximately representative.

 

As to gradients and hidden trackwork, I note firstly that the part that is actually hidden behind the lower scenic section is entirely plain and contains no points, sharp corners or gradients. The rest of the lower area is intended to be openly accessible to the same extent as the upper layout (albeit I might possibly have a system of covering the sides with black curtains; but these would easily be pulled back, of course). Junctionmad - can you elaborate on the nature of the issues that you have had with split level designs, helices and gradients such as to dissuade you from employing these features in future designs? I note that these are all, to varying degrees, popular features of model railways, so it is difficult to imagine that they are categorically unusable.

 

Denbridge - I know that it is your extremely firmly held view that it is not possible for the relevant sorts of locomotives to haul the relevant number of carriages around the curves in question or around a helix (as you have stated this very emphatically at every possible opportunity), but since I have already made it plain that, as I have conflicting information on the point (including someone who posted on this thread who, very helpfully, actually tested this, at least with 3rd radius curves on the flat and 12 ready to run carriages, and found no problems), I intend to test this for myself before building a layout relying on these features, may I ask why you see fit to continue to repeat it in such strident tones so frequently and what, exactly, that you seek to achieve by doing so? You and others who have questioned the ability of gradients and sharp curves to work have already convinced me of the need to perform tests before committing to this design, and revise the design as necessary as a result of the tests. What more is necessary?

 

Thank you for your suggestions involving the lower level. You may recall that the original design had a much simpler scenic section in the lower level, but it was pointed out that there was rather a lot of effort for very little effect, so I added more interest, so I should enjoy operating/programming/observing the lower level more than were it just a plain station. I should note that, apart from the plain track section behind the lower station, all of the lower level is just as accessible as the upper level (and recall that the current provisional plan is to build the N gauge layout on another level again on top of the upper level with a similar degree of separation, albeit this will be circa 800mm wide). I am particularly fond of the idea of a layout in which there is Underground interest connected to the main line, so there would have to be a particularly strong (and specific) reason to dissuade me from trying to build a layout incorporating this feature, even if doing so would not be as easy as building an entirely flat layout. I suspect that many comments are made under the misapprehension that the whole of the lower level apart from the station will be in a model tunnel or hidden somehow, which is not what I had planned.

 

In relation to the Underground stock, one of the reasons that I want to incorporate the Underground is that I have some Underground stock from Harrow Models from years ago (albeit only a little - but it is very lovely). I note that the successor to Harrow Models has a kit building service, although I should like to have a go at building them myself (and the ones that I have need some painting). However, this is probably a reason not to start with the underground level, as it may take some time to set this up (or realise that kit building is not for me and then commission the kit building service). Of course, the City Widened Lines services can largely be put together using ready to run stock (the Hornby N2s and LNER suburban carriages for the passenger services; I will need to investigate what freight locomotives were used there; wagons are readily available, of course). Denbridge - may I ask how you calculated the figure of 20 sets of Underground stock? That seems like rather a lot, and more than would (easily at least) fit in the relevant parts of the fiddle yards.

[Chimer]

Hi again James

 

I have conducted further trials and can report that the following unmodified locos have successfully started a train of 12 Hornby Mk1s on my 6' x 5' roundy-roundy with 3rd radius curves:

 

Hornby Princess Coronation (tender drive)

Hornby Patriot (tender drive)

Hornby Fowler 4F 0-6-0 (tender drive)

Bachmann Jubilee (loco drive)

Bachmann Crab (loco drive)

Bachmann Midland Compound 4-4-0 (loco drive) (with minor slippage)

Hornby Fowler 2-6-4T

 

and most amazingly:

 

Hornby Jinty 0-6-0T (with initial slippage, but no hand of god).

 

The only failure was a very old (R292) Hornby Black 5 (tender drive) which isn't happy with more than 6.  But that one is often reluctant to start on its own anyway ....

 

It was highly amusing watching the locos coming under the bridge at one end of the platform while the end coach was just disappearing into the tunnel at the other end.  Roughly an 11' train on a 14' circuit ......

 

The problem on pointwork I mentioned yesterday was apparently a particular pairing of couplings not liking working together.  No recurrence today.

 

So in my (tested) opinion, the proposed combination of train lengths and radii is not a show-stopper.  But note that I do share many of the reservations expressed by others about ambition, gradients, clearances etc., and the recommendations to start small.

 

Best of luck whatever you go for.

 

Chris

[Denbridge]

I think you've made your point that you think he's a madman and should build a shunting plank instead!

 

Phil's cross sectional plan looks excellent - I agree with him that anything other than very simple covered track is asking for trouble. Stuff stalling will be enough of an irritation (as it'll be hard to clean the track that's probably quite likely), but having to align and wire up point motors, let along dealing with a derailment when one occurs at some point will be a massive pain.

Read my posts never said anything of the sort!!

[Junctionmad]

 

 

Junctionmad - can you elaborate on the nature of the issues that you have had with split level designs, helices and gradients such as to dissuade you from employing these features in future designs? I note that these are all, to varying degrees, popular features of model railways, so it is difficult to imagine that they are categorically unusable.

 

 

I have no direct experience of building helixs, I have seen them in operation, to me they are so far removed from the prototype that they grate.

 

I do have experience of running , not building , layouts with different degrees of hidden track.  That experience has convinced me that as little as is humanly possible should be hidden  and what is should be plain track and some method of access must be maintained . my current plan does envisage hidden track , but I will make the sceneary removable to allow access. 

 

IN one instance we had a derailment ( I think from hitting a dead spider ) and we were unfortunate to have  an Up and down train passing the same point m resulting in two trains tangling together in a area with limited access, Feeling around trying to uncouple stock and extract it was not great and in the end most of it was just " dragged " out on its side.

 

In another , the layout had a single point hidden and we experienced  derailments,  Getting access to the point  was difficult  and in the end a piece of scenery had to be demolished to access it . it turned out the tie bar had broken .

 

With simple  gradients, as I said my experience is 1:50 is doable as long as its straight and well laid, especially a proper vertical transition curve at the start and end , and thats not an easy thing to ensure. I do find random uncoupling occurring to this day and some Keen System corridor connections get pressed too tight and fight the coupling 

 

SO my experience has convinced me that hidden sections are simply trouble waiting to happen and gradients are best avoided. IN my own experience with multiple club layouts and many home layouts of friends, Gradients and Helixs are very rare.  Its only in SCARM "gedankens" you see these items 

 

Note that when I refer to "hidden " I mean track that is inaccessible to the layout operator, not simply hidden from " view" 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Denbridge]

Hi again James

 

I have conducted further trials and can report that the following unmodified locos have successfully started a train of 12 Hornby Mk1s on my 6' x 5' roundy-roundy with 3rd radius curves:

 

Hornby Princess Coronation (tender drive)

Hornby Patriot (tender drive)

Hornby Fowler 4F 0-6-0 (tender drive)

Bachmann Jubilee (loco drive)

Bachmann Crab (loco drive)

Bachmann Midland Compound 4-4-0 (loco drive) (with minor slippage)

Hornby Fowler 2-6-4T

 

and most amazingly:

 

Hornby Jinty 0-6-0T (with initial slippage, but no hand of god).

 

The only failure was a very old (R292) Hornby Black 5 (tender drive) which isn't happy with more than 6.  But that one is often reluctant to start on its own anyway ....

 

It was highly amusing watching the locos coming under the bridge at one end of the platform while the end coach was just disappearing into the tunnel at the other end.  Roughly an 11' train on a 14' circuit ......

 

The problem on pointwork I mentioned yesterday was apparently a particular pairing of couplings not liking working together.  No recurrence today.

 

So in my (tested) opinion, the proposed combination of train lengths and radii is not a show-stopper.  But note that I do share many of the reservations expressed by others about ambition, gradients, clearances etc., and the recommendations to start small.

 

Best of luck whatever you go for.

 

Chris

The old tender drive mechs are certainly more sure footed. But did you run these at say a scale 20mph as would be the case leaving and entering a terminus? As an experiment, I'm currently laying a temporary curve of the tightest radius that will fit on a virgin piece of baseboard to test the (relatively few) Modern rtr steam loco's to see how they perform. I'll let you know.

[Denbridge]

Junctionmad - extrapolating for a moment from the very useful data point of the club layout: 300ft of track, for wiring and laying, took 12 person months. I work in meters, so I will convert this to meters (approximately, since we can only get approximate numbers out of this in any event). I will thus assume 12 person months per 100m, or ~2.5 person days per meter of track, laid and wired with DCC assuming prefabricated track and electrofrog points. (Of course, this does not take into account overhead, or differentiate between plain track or points, nor take into account different levels of experience, etc., so this is very approximate indeed, but it is all that I have so far by way of data). To check this calibration, does this seem broadly (as in within a factor of 2 either side) consistent with other people's experiences?

 

This of course assumes a(n approximately) linear relationship between track length and time spent. It could in principle be either exponential or logarithmic, but, with one data point, I cannot infer which of them applies from the timing data alone, and have to attempt to infer it from what I know about the nature of the task itself, which suggests an approximately linear relationship between the number of points/signals and time spent (how many points were on the club layout, do you know?), subject to certain fixed overheads of time (setting up controllers, etc.). If anyone has any information to suggest differently, that would be most helpful.

 

Having inferred a very approximate rate, the next step would be to extrapolate that rate to the two layouts that I am currently planning, which I will not be able to do until I get home and have access to SCARM to calculate the total trackage length and then multiply that by the rate and my estimate of a margin of error to get a range of construction times, assuming that this one data point is at least approximately representative.

 

As to gradients and hidden trackwork, I note firstly that the part that is actually hidden behind the lower scenic section is entirely plain and contains no points, sharp corners or gradients. The rest of the lower area is intended to be openly accessible to the same extent as the upper layout (albeit I might possibly have a system of covering the sides with black curtains; but these would easily be pulled back, of course). Junctionmad - can you elaborate on the nature of the issues that you have had with split level designs, helices and gradients such as to dissuade you from employing these features in future designs? I note that these are all, to varying degrees, popular features of model railways, so it is difficult to imagine that they are categorically unusable.

 

Denbridge - I know that it is your extremely firmly held view that it is not possible for the relevant sorts of locomotives to haul the relevant number of carriages around the curves in question or around a helix (as you have stated this very emphatically at every possible opportunity), but since I have already made it plain that, as I have conflicting information on the point (including someone who posted on this thread who, very helpfully, actually tested this, at least with 3rd radius curves on the flat and 12 ready to run carriages, and found no problems), I intend to test this for myself before building a layout relying on these features, may I ask why you see fit to continue to repeat it in such strident tones so frequently and what, exactly, that you seek to achieve by doing so? You and others who have questioned the ability of gradients and sharp curves to work have already convinced me of the need to perform tests before committing to this design, and revise the design as necessary as a result of the tests. What more is necessary?

 

Thank you for your suggestions involving the lower level. You may recall that the original design had a much simpler scenic section in the lower level, but it was pointed out that there was rather a lot of effort for very little effect, so I added more interest, so I should enjoy operating/programming/observing the lower level more than were it just a plain station. I should note that, apart from the plain track section behind the lower station, all of the lower level is just as accessible as the upper level (and recall that the current provisional plan is to build the N gauge layout on another level again on top of the upper level with a similar degree of separation, albeit this will be circa 800mm wide). I am particularly fond of the idea of a layout in which there is Underground interest connected to the main line, so there would have to be a particularly strong (and specific) reason to dissuade me from trying to build a layout incorporating this feature, even if doing so would not be as easy as building an entirely flat layout. I suspect that many comments are made under the misapprehension that the whole of the lower level apart from the station will be in a model tunnel or hidden somehow, which is not what I had planned.

 

In relation to the Underground stock, one of the reasons that I want to incorporate the Underground is that I have some Underground stock from Harrow Models from years ago (albeit only a little - but it is very lovely). I note that the successor to Harrow Models has a kit building service, although I should like to have a go at building them myself (and the ones that I have need some painting). However, this is probably a reason not to start with the underground level, as it may take some time to set this up (or realise that kit building is not for me and then commission the kit building service). Of course, the City Widened Lines services can largely be put together using ready to run stock (the Hornby N2s and LNER suburban carriages for the passenger services; I will need to investigate what freight locomotives were used there; wagons are readily available, of course). Denbridge - may I ask how you calculated the figure of 20 sets of Underground stock? That seems like rather a lot, and more than would (easily at least) fit in the relevant parts of the fiddle yards.

Fair enough James. You ask for advice from people, yet when you receive it, you decide to ignore it. Several extremely experienced modellers have tried to guide you, but you insist you can do it. I wish you all the luck in the world, though sadly I firmly believe you are heading for a very big (and expensive) disappointment.

[Junctionmad]

 

Fair enough James. You ask for advice from people, yet when you receive it, you decide to ignore it. Several extremely experienced modellers have tried to guide you, but you insist you can do it. I wish you all the luck in the world, though sadly I firmly believe you are heading for a very big (and expensive) disappointment.

 

I think this is an unfair criticism of the OP. He has put his layout plans up for criticism and he has engaged with that criticism . There is absolutely NO imperative that he takes any of it  onboard and he's entirely right to equally ask people to justify their claims . Simply saying " dont do this " , is not enough in my book.  In my case Ive tried to back up my concerns with experience and data ( in a highly subjective debate ) 

 

I personally , wouldn't dream of ultiising the space in that way , nor that track plan , BUT, thats my personal perspective , the OP is entitled to his, no matter what subsequently happens 

 

Rule 0 always applies 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Junctionmad

[njee20]

IME the effect of curves on haulage is greatly overstated by some. In reality I find the effect to be minescule. Gradients clearly do impact, but on the flat... not particularly worthy of consideration.

 

 

Fair enough James. You ask for advice from people, yet when you receive it, you decide to ignore it. Several extremely experienced modellers have tried to guide you, but you insist you can do it. I wish you all the luck in the world, though sadly I firmly believe you are heading for a very big (and expensive) disappointment.

 

The problem is how you give the advice, you've got my back up, and I'm not even the target of your 'advice'! You come across as the holder of the gospel, and woe betide anyone who goes against that. Maybe the OP will fail, and give up in 5 years having no run a single train, but that's his prerogative. 

[Denbridge]

I think this is an unfair criticism of the OP. He has put his layout plans up for criticism and he has engaged with that criticism . There is absolutely NO imperative that he takes any of it  onboard and he's entirely right to equally ask people to justify their claims . Simply saying " dont do this " , is not enough in my book.  In my case Ive tried to back up my concerns with experience and data ( in a highly subjective debate ) 

 

I personally , wouldn't dream of ultiising the space in that way , nor that track plan , BUT, thats my personal perspective , the OP is entitled to his, no matter what subsequently happens 

 

Rule 0 always applies 

If you have read this thread, I HAVE justified my claims using my under construction layout to carry out tests. I have also said I'm laying a temporary curve to carry out further tests, though that seems a waste of time. So don't criticise AND SLAG ME OFF WITHOUT BEING INFORMED. THE ONES WHO NEED CENSORING ARE THOSE ENCOURAGING WITH NO PROPER EXPERIENCE OF THE PITFALLS .

Usually the whole point of asking for advice is to avoid making the mistakes others have made. I can assure you, I've made some howlers in 40+ years of building model railways, so i'm speaking from experience, some of it, in my younger days, frankly heartbreaking to waste so much effort.

[njee20]

Junctionmad - extrapolating for a moment from the very useful data point of the club layout: 300ft of track, for wiring and laying, took 12 person months. I work in meters, so I will convert this to meters (approximately, since we can only get approximate numbers out of this in any event). I will thus assume 12 person months per 100m, or ~2.5 person days per meter of track, laid and wired with DCC assuming prefabricated track and electrofrog points. (Of course, this does not take into account overhead, or differentiate between plain track or points, nor take into account different levels of experience, etc., so this is very approximate indeed, but it is all that I have so far by way of data). To check this calibration, does this seem broadly (as in within a factor of 2 either side) consistent with other people's experiences?

 

That was 6 months of two people working 3 nights per week, so I'm not sure that extrapolation stands up when you try and break it down to that level of granularity.

I'd say it's more like:

- 2 people

- 12 man hours/week

- 26 weeks of work

- 312 man hours of work

 

Or c1 man hour per meter of track, which I'd say is quick, but definitely more realistic than 2.5 days per metre. Laying plain track can be very quick - a lot of block detection modules (something like the Digikeijs DR4088 modules) just necessitate the connection of a single feed going into the module, once you've got a bus set up then attaching droppers can be quick. Conversely, if you're having to do lots of point motors in cramped conditions, and add in microswitches then it's probably far slower.

 

If you have read this thread, I HAVE justified my claims using my under construction layout to carry out tests. I have also said I'm laying a temporary curve to carry out further tests, though that seems a waste of time. So don't criticise AND SLAG ME OFF WITHOUT BEING INFORMED. THE ONES WHO NEED CENSORING ARE THOSE ENCOURAGING WITH NO PROPER EXPERIENCE OF THE PITFALLS .

Usually the whole point of asking for advice is to avoid making the mistakes others have made. I can assure you, I've made some howlers in 40+ years of building model railways, so i'm speaking from experience, some of it, in my younger days, frankly heartbreaking to waste so much effort.

You're being unnecessarily aggressive though, again, you've made your points very clear (although some have been contradicted). Why do you keep shouting at the OP that he's going to fail?

[Denbridge]

For what it's worth, the temporary curve I've laid is a 45 degree at around 22 inch radius with a straight ever side. the test rake is 12 Hornby latest colletts which are very free running. So far I've tried 5 off the shelf modern generation steam loco's as follows

1. Bachmann Hall. At a scale speed as would be approaching a Terminus (A) managed 7 before slipping.At Toy Train Speeds, say a scale 90mph (B) managed 10

2. Hornby Castle (A) 10 (B)12

3. Hornby S15 (A) 8 (B) 10

4. Hornby Hall (A) 7 (B) 9

5. Hornby N15 (A)9 (B) 11

Also an old Airfix tender drive with the horrid mechanism awaiting rebuilding managed all 12 in both cases.

On the layout proper, the tightest curve is into the goods reception at around 32" (just measured)

All loco's managed 10 at scale speed, the S15 and Castle all 12.

[Chimer]

The old tender drive mechs are certainly more sure footed. But did you run these at say a scale 20mph as would be the case leaving and entering a terminus? As an experiment, I'm currently laying a temporary curve of the tightest radius that will fit on a virgin piece of baseboard to test the (relatively few) Modern rtr steam loco's to see how they perform. I'll let you know.

 

Well I started them at a scale 0 mph (as you would) ..... They accelerated and decelerated gently and could be stopped reasonably accurately - with an H&M Duette .... latest technology is not too noticeable around here.

 

Edit - crossed posts.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Chimer

[jamespetts]

Denbridge - thank you for the tests - that is most interesting and useful. It is very useful to have empirical data. However, please stop repeating the falsehood that I am not receptive to advice. Exactly what part of planning to test curves with long trains and gradients with short trains before building a layout relying on them because of advice received here amounts to ignoring that very advice?

 

In relation to the time extrapolation, 316 hours' work for 300ft of track would be ~1h/foot, would it not, on average, or ~3h/meter? I note that there was reference to installing point motors/frog switches in cramped conditions as being significant. Can you elaborate a little on what sort of cramped conditions that you mean? (I.e., do you mean that the points are cramped because they are close together, or that the baseboards are cramped and therefore have limited access to them?)

 

In relation to hidden areas, the lower area on this plan is intended to be ~90cm above ground level, so a similar height to a desk (perhaps slightly higher), so the lower level would not be inaccessible on account of its height. The rear of the lower level has no pointwork on the far wall (the top of the diagram), albeit there is some in the fiddle yard further back. Is a layout at ~90cm high with another at ~120cm high really that inaccessible so as to be comparable to an area hidden behind scenery?

 

Edit: Incidentally, as to the traction, the locomotives seem to be quite close to pulling the full amount of carriages, suggesting that ballasting (as recommended by the people who run the McKinley Railway) or a magnetic adhesion system (as produced by DCC Concepts, the "PowerBase") might well be sufficient to overcome these issues, although that would also need testing, of course. Another option would be to reduce the maximum length to 10 carriages.

Edited February 26, 2018 by jamespetts

[njee20]

In relation to the time extrapolation, 316 hours' work for 300ft of track would be ~1h/foot, would it not, on average, or ~3h/meter? I note that there was reference to installing point motors/frog switches in cramped conditions as being significant. Can you elaborate a little on what sort of cramped conditions that you mean? (I.e., do you mean that the points are cramped because they are close together, or that the baseboards are cramped and therefore have limited access to them?)

 

Apologies, you're quite right, I'm mixing units. 3 hours/m is probably about right, but again, plain track really needn't take long, whilst pointwork can.

 

If you have permanent baseboards, so you're trying to do everything upside down, that's harder. If you happen to be installing a motor near a cross member (ideally design your baseboards to avoid this), and close to other motors, that's significantly harder than having a board you can simply invert, and work on at a comfortable height. If you add in restrictions like a split-level design that's even worse!

Edited February 26, 2018 by njee20

[Junctionmad]

 

 

Is a layout at ~90cm high with another at ~120cm high really that inaccessible so as to be comparable to an area hidden behind scenery?

no , 30cm is a reasonable " reach " space, BUT, try working in the middle of that baseboard with in effect the ceiling 300mm above your baseboard .  can you use a drill, can you get your head and shoulders in there , it is comfortable.

 

Yes I would agree with 3 hour per metre as an average deducted from the data , This would include faster periods laying straight track and very much slower periods with curves and pointwork ( remember this included the Servo point motors ) 

 

Nor would  they have kept up that work rate over a much bigger layout I suspect 

 

Note that viewing a 1.2 metre layout is nice, working on it isnt !!!.  Try trying to reach and work in the very centre of the most deepest board, its not easy , not easy at all. 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Chimer]

To add detail for what it's worth, my "layout" has 135^o of 3rd radius curves at each end, linked across the front through the station by 90^o at around 3' average radius including one 24" Streamline point and one curved ditto, and at the back by what is effectively a crossover (straight on leading to fiddle sidings).

 

 

So my test trains were effectively on a curve all the time.  Given Dendridge's results, I'll be a bit circumspect about rushing to buy new models, however much better they may look.  But 8 or 9 up will be plenty for my "last great layout".

 

Chris

[Denbridge]

A suggestion I would make is to look at forums for USA layouts where double deck and indeed triple deck are common place. You will find that most have at least 2' of separation between levels to allow for access and maintenance.Also, usually the upper deck is generally considerably narrower to enable access to the rear of the boards. You will find some good advice on forums like these. Also I've seen some multi level layouts on Continental forums, which seem to have a similar ethos to the americans, but for me at least there is the language barrier on those.

[Junctionmad]

A suggestion I would make is to look at forums for USA layouts where double deck and indeed triple deck are common place. You will find that most have at least 2' of separation between levels to allow for access and maintenance.Also, usually the upper deck is generally considerably narrower to enable access to the rear of the boards. You will find some good advice on forums like these. Also I've seen some multi level layouts on Continental forums, which seem to have a similar ethos to the americans, but for me at least there is the language barrier on those.

 

yes my friends triple height layout is like that , upper levels are not wide and track is accessible from both sides , thats entirely different to having whole fiddle yards in intermediate or lower levels 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Junctionmad

[john dew]

Hi James

 

Computor control......you mentioned itrain a few pages back.......have you looked at RR&Co Train Controller?

 

Regards

 

John

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your continued feedback: that is most helpful. Junctionmad - I note your reference to servo motors in particular. From my very brief research on the topic, it seems that these are considerably more complex to wire than, say, a Cobolt motor, which has built-in frog polarity switches (albeit those switches still need to be wired in, of course). Can you (or anyone else) estimate how much longer that it takes to wire a servo motor compared to a more ordinary point motor? Also, it would be extremely helpful if you could let me know (approximately) the number of turnouts on the layout in question so that I can try to use that as a basis for calibration rather than linear length of track, as trying two separate extrapolation methods seems to be sensible in the circumstances.

 

Incidentally, we have some extremely useful data in this thread now (the results of testing locomotives' haulage capacity with long trains and corners, and layout building time estimates); I wonder whether it would be helpful to put these in a new topic on their own and ask the moderators to pin it so that people can find these data without having to wade through pages of discussion about my layout plan in particular?

 

As to RR & Co. Train Controller, I am aware of this and that it is well received. I was looking into something similar, the iTrain, which has the great advantage of running on Linux, which is what I use on the small portable desktop computer that I plan to use in the shed, and I am told has features comparable to the RR & Co. software.

 

In relation to height separation, I could probably re-arrange the heights to get a height separation of 35cm between each board with none of the three boards (the two for this layout and the one for the N gauge layout on one wall) at an unreasonable height above the floor, but any greater separation would not be possible within reasonable limits without having only two boards, which would either prevent me from building the/a N gauge layout or requiring having one level only for the OO gauge layout. I wonder how the US layouts manage three boards each with a 60cm separation? That would require a total height of 180cm between upper and lower boards, not including the depth of the boards themselves, which would be very difficult to use for anyone without some sort of raised walkway for the upper level (a kick stool would be an easy thing to get and use for viewing, but it would not be practical to have to use this generally rather than for occasional access to rear fiddle yards).

 

Modular baseboards might need to be considered, but I imagine that it would be very hard to get the track plan for a substantial station throat to a state where there are no joins that do not bisect a point without making each module unwieldy in size.

[Denbridge]

Thank you all for your continued feedback: that is most helpful. Junctionmad - I note your reference to servo motors in particular. From my very brief research on the topic, it seems that these are considerably more complex to wire than, say, a Cobolt motor, which has built-in frog polarity switches (albeit those switches still need to be wired in, of course). Can you (or anyone else) estimate how much longer that it takes to wire a servo motor compared to a more ordinary point motor? Also, it would be extremely helpful if you could let me know (approximately) the number of turnouts on the layout in question so that I can try to use that as a basis for calibration rather than linear length of track, as trying two separate extrapolation methods seems to be sensible in the circumstances.

 

Incidentally, we have some extremely useful data in this thread now (the results of testing locomotives' haulage capacity with long trains and corners, and layout building time estimates); I wonder whether it would be helpful to put these in a new topic on their own and ask the moderators to pin it so that people can find these data without having to wade through pages of discussion about my layout plan in particular?

 

As to RR & Co. Train Controller, I am aware of this and that it is well received. I was looking into something similar, the iTrain, which has the great advantage of running on Linux, which is what I use on the small portable desktop computer that I plan to use in the shed, and I am told has features comparable to the RR & Co. software.

 

In relation to height separation, I could probably re-arrange the heights to get a height separation of 35cm between each board with none of the three boards (the two for this layout and the one for the N gauge layout on one wall) at an unreasonable height above the floor, but any greater separation would not be possible within reasonable limits without having only two boards, which would either prevent me from building the/a N gauge layout or requiring having one level only for the OO gauge layout. I wonder how the US layouts manage three boards each with a 60cm separation? That would require a total height of 180cm between upper and lower boards, not including the depth of the boards themselves, which would be very difficult to use for anyone without some sort of raised walkway for the upper level (a kick stool would be an easy thing to get and use for viewing, but it would not be practical to have to use this generally rather than for occasional access to rear fiddle yards).

 

Modular baseboards might need to be considered, but I imagine that it would be very hard to get the track plan for a substantial station throat to a state where there are no joins that do not bisect a point without making each module unwieldy in size.

regarding servos. I use the megapoints boards, only three wires from the panel to the 1st servo board, 3 to the next, etc. each board controls 12 servos. He also does frog switching boards, but I use microswitches. As a guide to time, I installed 6 yesterday in a little over 1 and half hours, working underneath the layout. Including wiring the frogs. Check out his website.

[njee20]

There's a reason a sticky thread like that doesn't exist, and it's because you simply cannot break down time estimates to that level of granularity.

 

Junctionmad's example is a good one, but you can't time the laying of a point and say "right, laying a pair of points takes x minutes", and create some sort of matrix which tells you how long it'll take to build a layout.

 

I use servos and Megapoints boards, having previously used solenoid motors, I personally don't find a difference in time to place a servo, but I make my own mounts (you can get some off the shelf ones from Merg among others, but many are quite expensive), which all takes time. I've not used a slow motion motor like a Cobalt or Tortoise, personally they were too expensive for the quantity I wanted/needed.  I know a couple of people who've found Cobalts very frustrating though, and one piece of kit not working can amount to the loss of many hours. All that said, some of my points have probably taken 15 minutes all in to lay and wire up, whilst others have probably taken 6 hours if you discover the alignment's not quite right, or the point is problematic, or the motor is faulty, or any number of variables that can affect it.

 

You can't place any sort of accurate estimate on time - assuming the odd evening and a bit of weekend work I'd reckon on at least 5 years to get your plan to a place where track is laid and it's wired up. Probably the same again for ballasting and scenery, and then a lifetime of making slight 'improvements' to it.

Edited February 26, 2018 by njee20