Please critique my plan

[Gary Hodge]

3 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

It depends how you intend to run the layout

That's a good point. I have a smaller room next to this basement full of 'toys', one of which is an old multi cd player. I don't really listen to the cds but its pleasant to have them on in the background while I'm doing something. Occasionally, a track will catch my attention and I will pause what I'm doing and listen to it. Less often, but sometimes, I like to sit and listen to a particular cd or record, or maybe just a few tracks. Then I focus on the music, 

I imagine a similar scenario with the model railway. Trains will run around the mainline, almost at random, whilst I am pottering elsewhere on the layout. I will occasionally stop what I'm doing and watch one go by. As with the cds, its nice to swap them around sometimes or, once in a while, focus on something in particular.

Conversely, with the branch line, I like the idea of creating a train by collecting wagons and dropping them off somewhere.  

 

[Gary Hodge]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Avoiding the helices will save you huge amounts of time, money and hassle.

Having just looked at the required materials on Anyrail, the revised design saves almost 100 lengths of flexitrack. That saving alone should cover the cost of automating the storage yard and the time saved building the helices can be used scratching my head learning how to make it work!

[RobinofLoxley]

This looks much more do-able. Still plenty of board area to create landscapes.

[Michael Hodgson]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

It depends how you intend to run the layout, of course, but if you want to simulate trains going somewhere and then later coming back again, they need to be able cross over (unless you have duplicate trains for each direction).

 

Agreed.  There is one advantage though in having certain trains running in one direction only on a layout like this  - loaded coal/china clay or whatever only typically runs in one direction on many routes, with the empties running the other way.  So you put empty wagons on one set of loops and similar loaded on the other.  

 

I note that the main storage loops are all the same length.  This is correct given the planned method of operation, as it means that you don't need to keep "the long loop" free  for some particular train, and any train can go into whichever loop happens to be free.  The additional loops are different lengths, but that's also fine, as they can be allocated to particular trains.

 

I hope those utilities aren't something you/plumbers etc need access to.

[Gary Hodge]

17 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

loaded coal/china clay or whatever only typically runs in one direction on many routes, with the empties running the other way.

I understand the point you are making but I haven't noticed any significant difference* with clay traffic as they're not open wagons, similarly with the railfreight, parcels, seaweed and fertilizer traffic.

*I believe empty CDA trains can be longer than the loaded ones but then the 08:00 DMU should have more passengers than the 12:00 - I'm happy to overlook these details.

 

17 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I hope those utilities aren't something you/plumbers etc need access to.

The utilities are gas, electric and water supplies for the building. I only need access to read the meters and will still have more space than most understair cupboards.

[5BarVT]

On 18/12/2021 at 03:09, St Enodoc said:

Paul, to correct your slip of the keyboard, 760mm is of course 2'6" not 3'.

 

Yes, I use 60mm spacing between double tracks with an inner radius of 760mm and an outer of 820mm. This is mostly because the tracks in question lead off sections of track at each end where the spacing is already 60mm representing the 10ft way, not 6ft way, between a running line and a goods loop.

Apologies for ‘brain out of gear’ typo and misunderstanding of 60mm spacing.  Thanks to St.E. for keeping things right.

Paul.

[Bittern]

On 18/12/2021 at 04:37, RobinofLoxley said:

For me, a layout like this has to be DCC, otherwise you will find yourself restricted to operating one train at a time and your massive stock collection will be irrelevant.

For a layout like this, especially one where there's a lot of watching trains go by, there's advantages both ways. The major downside of DCC is that it is all about controlling specific locos, not controlling the train in particular locations. There are train-identification units and half-wave deceleration signals and other such enhancements, but they're all trying to work around the problem of DCC having been developed 10 years too early and so being a one-way system without a good localisation system, and will probably cost you more than something like Heathcote's TCB modules (or even implementing it yourself, which I think you'd have to do for absolute block). Things like dropping  bankers  in the right place is easier with analogue control too, especially if you carefully match your locos' performance.

 

The upside of using DCC is that it makes automating things like shunting simpler, and realistically reflecting the performance difference between a lightweight EMU and a mineral train. DCC is probably the less awkward solution to things like long trains with pick-ups at the back, real MU operation with consisting (though implementing the logic for that is probably easiest to do on a computer), and so on. Pointwork is probably simpler with DCC but it all depends how  you want to tie it into the automation.

 

Interacting with manual operation is a lot more practical when using a computer to control the whole thing, rather than distributed modules, and the off-the-shelf control software packages are designed to work through DCC.

[AndrueC]

The simpler wiring was my attraction to DCC but I also want my next layout to be fully computer controlled. I'm a computer programmer so setting that up doesn't bother me. I know all the correct swear words and after twenty years with Visual Studio a little bit of home automation should be a walk in the park

[RobinofLoxley]

Simpler wiring, yeah it depends. I have a U-shaped layout with points all over it, so to bring all the controls to a central point would require  2 x 5M cable per point average and that would put the controller at the Apex of the U in totally the wrong place. Working from one end, which is what I have done, would need half the cables to go up, over, and back down; the climb would be 6M total off board cable. . Having the local DR4018's centrally placed serving an 8-point cluster has cut that average to around 1M per point. However, adding block detection wiring will do the opposite, as I currently have a power feed every 60cm but the detector modules which take 16 feeds each will be more dispersed, adding metres to cabling in some places. When you have a large layout, there will be a lot of metres of cable whatever you do!

[AndrueC]

Oh by 'simpler' I didn't mean less. I've learnt that lesson now   Next layout will have droppers on every individual piece of track.

 

But I currently have two loops (one is a figure of eight) and trains can run from one to the other or they can be operated separately.  I have two staging yards with four sidings in each. But the wiring is just a bus and droppers. No need for isolation sections or switches for sidings. I'd call that simpler.

 

I do now have turnout motors but they currently have their own bus - or at least they daisy-chain off a single point near the head of the track bus. One of my projects for this winter is to install a booster for them.

 

But I agree that block detection is going to be interesting problem to solve on my next layout. I can imagine some solutions might not even be compatible with N gauge.

Edited December 21, 2021 by AndrueC

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, AndrueC said:

The simpler wiring was my attraction to DCC but I also want my next layout to be fully computer controlled. I'm a computer programmer so setting that up doesn't bother me. I know all the correct swear words and after twenty years with Visual Studio a little bit of home automation should be a walk in the park

Me too.  The beauty of DCC is not about how easy the thing is to wire, nor about what kind of controller you have to act as a train driver, It's how you get the train to do what it ought to when a route is set and the signals are cleared.   Full automation means software is needed in addition to DCC in order to set the routes and signals.  It's not so much the DCC hardware that matters, it's the software issuing the DCC commands.  Whilst there are other packages, I think you will find everything you might want to do already coded in iTrain, but of course that still needs to be configured to suit the physical layout.

.

[AndrueC]

Yup. What I'd like to be able to do is just issue the command 'Run Big Bertha'(*) and the computer will park any train that is in her way, switch the turnouts and get her rolling.

 

(*)Actually that might throw up an error. My Big Bertha is a class 56 by Dapol and she's never run anywhere. 'Crawl slowly' is more accurate

Edited December 21, 2021 by AndrueC

[ITG]

2 hours ago, AndrueC said:

But I agree that block detection is going to be interesting problem to solve on my next layout. I can imagine some solutions might not even be compatible with N gauge.

 

56 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Whilst there are other packages, I think you will find everything you might want to do already coded in iTrain, but of course that still needs to be configured to suit the physical layout.

I am soon to get on the iTrain train. But I can already see converting my existing DCC layout is just not feasible. Just too many droppers already in situ, which are not aligned in a way that easily allows the creation of blocks, and also not easily physically accessible under boards. So I’m planning on building a non scenic 6’x4’ test layout with a circuit, a loop and two sidings simply to become familiar with iTrain, and the hardware to support it (Z21, sensors etc in my case). Then I’ll develop a new bigger layout, hopefully with the benefit of gaining some prior understanding around blocks, sensors, signals etc. 

[Gary Hodge]

After a few more iterations on AnyRail, I now have a plan that I am satisfied with. I've arrived at this after again reading the comments made, for which I thank you all. I hope this will provide some food for thought for others planning a layout.

This is the DC part of the layout, main line plus an out and back passenger branch. This should be a pleasant environment to sit and watch the trains go by, as well as being functional. The track between the Railfreight depot and the goods shed will act as an interchange between DC and DCC operation. (The shaded area to the left is a 50cm raised concrete plinth which I felt was best avoided where access is required under the baseboards)The DCC part of the layout has been intertwined around the DC to provide a layout where I envisage I will enjoy driving the trains. I hope it will also provide the visual impression of explosions of railway infrastructure in an otherwise rural landscape. This also provides an additional 'moorland scene' layout above the storage yards.