Layout Version 2.0

[regme]

Hi

Turns out my layout does not fit my expectations, so it's coming down. The main thing is to make it modular so it can be moved and the space I have.

So the layout has an outside loop, so the trains can run continuously but also branch off for the dumper and loader. However I would also like to be able to have some shunting happening so your not just watching trains go round. The ultimate goal would be to have the dumper and loading working.

I have come up with the layout below and hit a few snags, the first I do not have 1.8m long arm span, so the corner is an issue. The second is most modules seem to be 1.2m x 0.6m wide, all though I could go for a 1.2mx1.2m module not sure if there would be any issues with going that way.

I'm not fixed to this layout, so any changes would be welcomed, even thought about running track under the dumper and loader and have the trains just come out at certain locations, could be messy.

Cheers

[ITG]

I suggest the main challenge of your existing plan is that you start with 1200mm boards, which in themselves will be difficult to reach across to accurately and comfortably model, let along the 1800+m across the corner. Maybe not so bad in the left bottom corner, as with nothing in the centre of the U curve, you could make a (removable) access hatch. But the bottom right and top right corners look far too busy for anything removable. In any case 1200mm lengths of boards with delicate scenery on them will be difficult to move safely.

 

If I had your space available, I’d explore if going around the outside of the room on 600mm boards were possible? With almost 4m x 3m that would leave you something like a centre hole of 2.5m x 1.8m - lots of room to move around. Maybe the other side of the layout could be simply storage roads, with all the scenery - albeit different track plan - in the bottom and right sides as you have now.

[RobinofLoxley]

Is there something about the room, so that the upper left part isnt available.? To add to what ITG said, never mind being able to reach the corners/edges to rerail a derailment, how about trying to build stuff when you cant reach it.

[Harlequin]

You can happily use 0.6 * 1.2m modules if you cross the diagonal with your roundy round loop and have an operating well in the middle. (See your original thread.)

 

That would make better use of the space, bring everything within reach, be more easily removable and actually give you a better track plan without so many sharp radius curves and without trains passing the Industry in both directions in quick succession.

 

BTW: Track running so close to the backscene makes the transition from model to backscene more difficult to disguise. Your only choices are walls - retaining walls, building walls, boundary walls. They might look OK in an industrial setting but it might be good to allow for more variation.

 

[regme]

Thanks for the replies, this is the first time I have drawn the layout to scale, so I could take into account the infrastructure and where the batters would extend (the geotech came back with rock so the batters will be 1V:0.5H as opposed to 1V:2H).

 

I didn't realise how much space the dumper was taking up, I could probably loose some or re-arrange the outer buildings to gain more space.

 

The top of the room actually opens up into another room so going around the walls is out, you have to walk past to get to the front door.

 

Had not thought about about the backscene/ model transition, maybe I could have a mountain range as the backscene with a very big rail cutting.

 

I've been looking at the previous thread and layouts, on the left is a shelf unit with all my modelling stuff, I could move it but not sure where to put it. That would make it easier, the other solution would be incorporate part of the layout through the shelf (my kid's suggestion) rather than having a dog leg there.

 

From an operation point of view is there anything that really stands out that could be an issue.

 

More soul searching required.

 

Cheers

[DCB]

There isn't much scope for running trains.   One can run round the outside, Passenger?  DMU can go round both ways. If not getting the engine to the other end of the train without lifting it bodily off the rails will be a challenge.  A train can run round the inner and go under the loader and over the unloader.  That's about it.  There is very little usable siding space, you have use the shed as a headshunt to get to most of the sidings and the loops beside the shed are extremely difficult to get to.  It's going to need DCC to work at all but I think its a step back from the previous scheme.   A few long sidings for spare stock would be more useful than the short sidings and shed arrangement which takes a lot of room to hold a little stock.

[regme]

Thanks, it's going to be DCC.  Unfortunately the trains will run in the same direction purely because of the loader and dumper, not sure how to swap the direction with the space I have available.

 

I'll have another go at changing the layout and buildings around to create some more space

[regme]

Hi

 

I have had another go at the layout to try and make the reach more manageable.

 

Cheers

 

[Aire Head]

What are the dimensions on the boards in your second plan?

[AndrueC]

I like it. Since you have bridges could you also add a tunnel and/or cutting? I'm a fan of roundy-roundy but I do find that terrain helps, especially if it temporarily hides a train. I think it helps move a round-roundy away from 'train goes round and round' to 'train moves through the countryside'. It will help differentiate the different loops you have and also makes running a single train across all the loops feel like a larger single loop.

Edited February 22, 2022 by AndrueC

[regme]

2 hours ago, Aire Head said:

What are the dimensions on the boards in your second plan?

I was going to make the modules 1.2 x 0.6m.

 

That's the next bit, working out the batter lines to see what I can get away with and also the grades.

[AndrueC]

I have only limited experience with inclined curves (and that was accidental and didn't end well, lol) but I reckon it's reasonable to expect modern models (other than short wheelbase) to pull a metre long train up 1% round a 3rd radius curve. My unintentional experiment showed that most could actually pull a metre long train up 2%, second radius, over 90 degrees but they struggled, lol.

 

However my 0-6-0 was not so happy and couldn't pull such a long train up 1% on the straight.

 

(This is N scale so larger scales might do better).

Edited February 22, 2022 by AndrueC

[RobinofLoxley]

I dont think its necessary to plan for 10cm of elevation with OO. You actually only need about 65mm of clearance depending how much stuff is under the track - underlay etc - but really that should apply across the whole layout. Superstructure at bridges and crossings can be 3mm ply carrying the track. Even so you are pushing it but as usual it depends on the stock and weight over axles is a prime variable for gradients. I dont have any experience but its said curves on gradients are worse. Apart from any concerns about gradient this looks a decent plan, apart from the lack of place to store stock.  If the whole plan were flipped side to side, would you have room for some sidings up the right hand side of about 1M in length.

[ITG]

In my experience, other than the actual incline % (mine are 2%) , the other key components are the curve radius (increases friction) and also the transition between level and incline. It’s not a good idea to jump from 0 to 2% in one go, or indeed 2% to 0. It benefits from a transition through 0.5%, 1%, 1.5% etc. A sudden transition from level can often lift driving or pick-up wheels momentarily.

[AndrueC]

For the inclines on my previous layout (ignoring the one I didn't intend) I created the easements by setting aside a bit more space than the incline needed (two times the length of my longest rolling stock) then chopped off the same single rolling stock length from both the ends of the raw incline (I used Woodland Scenics ramps). Then I centered what remained of the incline. This left gaps at either end and I just let the rail sag as it saw fit, making sure that the track joints at both ends was on flat board and nowhere near the incline.

 

I never had any problems with my intended inclines even though the line looked like it been laid by a drunkard near the top of one of them

 

But curves will be a new experience for me as well.

[DCB]

You can get all sorts of weird effects with curved gradients.   I have a 3rd radius 1 in 33 about 120 degrees and locos grip better going round than on the straight and stock drags round it so the train stops on the straight beyond the curve.  On a 2nd Radius spiral its difficult to get Jinty type 0-6-0s with 30+31mm wheelbase to have more than 3 wheels on the track.  The tracks remain flat measured as a radius but the inner track is higher at one end of the loco than the other,   Hornby Dublo are not too bad as they have correctly coned wheel treads which compensate somewhat but Bachmann and unsprung Hornby etc have problems. No problem with BoBo Diesels.  My 1 in 33 3rd radius is OK for most steam RTR. 

The clearance under bridges needs to be about 60mm as some OO RTR is 15 scale feet high (Should be 13ft 6" 54mm Max and 10 feet wide. I have managed a 65mm rail top to rail top by soldering rails to a PCB bridge deck, no sleepers or ballast, 

[RobinofLoxley]

I was wondering about superelevating a curved section that I will have, not finished yet, which has a gentle gradient of about 0.5% as part of transition to flat at the top of the climb. Its actually a twist, with 45 degrees one way followed by 90 degrees the other, with short straights (~10cm) in between.

[AndrueC]

The problem I eluded to earlier was educational. I had a 180 degree second radius curve in a corner of my board. Because I'd been a bit slapdash when assembling the boards that corner sagged a bit. It didn't really look that bad and had been fine for over a year. But over this last winter I began to notice trains slowing shortly after the locomotive had pulled out of the curve (much like @DCB experienced). At the point of slow down the end of the train would be almost half way round the curve with both the loco and the first item behind it clear of the curve. One of my trains (a class 43) actually slipped her wheels at lower speeds.

 

After investigating further I found the following:

* According to a phone app the last 90 degrees of the curve had an incline ranging from 1% to 3%. 

* The bottom of the curve was roughly half way round.

* The curve had been built out of Setrack and when I bit the bullet and removed it to rebuild it from scratch I realised that it hadn't been properly joined because when I carefully soldered all the pieces together they no longer fit in the original location. So it was probably slightly tighter than second radius.

 

From this I conclude the following:

* Modern N scale kit can drag nearly a metre long rake round a 90 degree second radius curve at up to 2% gradient.

* Baseboards/track settle over time so you need a good safety margin when constructing. 'I got away with it' during construction can often become 'It doesn't work any more' over time.

* My class 43 is well-named as Miss Behaviour 

 

Anyway that problem curve resulted in me tearing down my layout (it was due to happen soon anyway). Amusingly I've just realised that my new layout and the one being discussed here are basically the same, mine is just larger. I have the same multi-level outer loop and a major interchange at the top, lol.

Edited February 23, 2022 by AndrueC

[DCB]

#AndrueC    That's very useful. With modular layouts/ portable layouts its vital to get them level. both lengthways and cross ways. Even more so when gradients are involved.   If you get a 1% slope on the baseboard then your i in 33 becomes a 1 in 25 or 1 in 50, or both if its a spiral.  Then they sag.   That 1% is better than most carpenters work to for shelves or builders for floors. well within limits for spirit levels.  In fact with most spirit levels you have to turn them round to split the error. I don't know about apps.   

We have a layout in a purpose built shed.  The layout sits on battens at the back and legs at the front. Last Saturday I sawed 10mm off one leg to get rid of a hump and Thursday I will be re drilling and repositioning the wall batten to lower the outside by 10mm to cope with 35 years worth of settlement and stop Bachman coaches rolling away where its supposed to be flat.  I made a 3 ft long screwdriver specially for the job.

[regme]

So when you have a constant grade on a curve the inside rail will be steeper and the outside rail will be flatter, when you introduce super-elevation it makes it worse.  Bear in mind that the grade change is dependent on the width, so HO scale it might not be that bad (will work that out later).

 

RobinofLoxley, I have also been considering super elevation, I'm not sure about rail, but in road design you usually put or super in so that 80% of the super transition happens before the tanget point the other 20% is within the curve.  Also you can introduce a spiral curve that will help with the transition (bit harder to work out but there is "stick method" that will help create a spiral curve.

 

As for you two curves I think you short straights are to short (not sure what scale or the radius you are using) but in HO scale I have found that having a short transition between curves causes problems with the couplers as there is not enough angle to take into account the transition from one curve to the next, especially if the couples are body mounted.

 

So I would have a curve, spiral transition, straight, spiral transition curve.  The straight would be at a min length of your longest wagon or loco, which what I'm doing.  My transition are 360mm long with the curve being offset from the straight by 10mm - hope that makes sense.

 

The grades are the tricky bit, I have since worked out all I need is 80mm separation at the cross-overs (includes the depth of the bridge), so I have one going down (to the dumper) while the other two (loader and main line) are going up, so the max length I need is 1.7m for 50mm.

 

As for the vertical curves (transitions) I managed to find some design guide lines, which when converted to HO where pretty massive. I'm not sure as to whether I should have a change of grade of 1% over the length of a wagon or the loco (150mm or 280mm respectively), but I agree going from 0% to 2% or 3% will cause problems.  Anyway the one golden rule I have learnt is "If it looks good, it will feel good". 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

Be careful about your calculations. The reason the inside rail gradient is steeper on a rising curve is because the inside rail is shorter for the same increase in height. Nothing to do with 'camber' if you will. The idea of superelevation is to change the loading around a rake to avoid the problems just described. 

[regme]

Your right the crossfall or camber doesn't affect the grade of the inside rail, I always thought superelevation was there to make you faster around a curve and stop you sliding out at least for roads.

[regme]

I have had another go to smooth things out, now the shunting side of things seems to have fallen in a heap.  I was hoping to get a maintenance shed in there, but it's not looking good.

 

[regme]

So I have finalised the grades and clearances, so the max grade is 3%, just need to work on the contours.  I was going to go with bridges but the batter slopes were not working so I'm going with tunnels instead.  Would like to get a creek in there somewhere, but will see how it goes.

 

[AndrueC]

3% on curves, hope it works. To be honest I'm considering going to steeper on mine. Currently I have 1% and whilst that sounds great no-one seems to make ready formed inclines at that slope. WS only goes down to 2%. I have an idea of how to construct them but admit that I'd rather just use ready formed.