New room,new ideas please.

[RobinofLoxley]

One thing here comes to mind, and that is how the out and back effect on the reversing loop will look when you are actually operating. A train will travel left to right, disappear into a tunnel I presume, and then reappear travelling the other way. How would it look if the two lines were more separated, suppose the upper line were set back a bit further? I would also suggest that where you have drawn the reverse loop as a 270 degree loop before angling it back, to keep it as compact as possible, whether the lower line curves could be smoothed out so that it emerges earlier (ie more to the right) from the tunnel mouth, or maybe even bridging there. The space between out and back could be used for storage lines, either extra or replacing some of the partly visible section. (I have a 270 degree loop on my own layout in 2 different locations and i realised a bit late I could have smoothed them all out much more than I did, 😞).

 

The branch concept is always working. It it possible to have an interchange at the left hand end of the proposed through station and still get enough height along the rear wall to clear the reverse loop?

 

Lastly, do draw out the main station properly to check the concept, before going on.

[5BarVT]

55 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Lastly, do draw out the main station properly to check the concept, before going on.

Particularly because you have to turn back at the through station - you will find that pointwork will eat up the available length very quickly!

Paul.

[ITG]

12 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

One thing here comes to mind, and that is how the out and back effect on the reversing loop will look when you are actually operating. A train will travel left to right, disappear into a tunnel I presume, and then reappear travelling the other way. How would it look if the two lines were more separated, suppose the upper line were set back a bit further? I would also suggest that where you have drawn the reverse loop as a 270 degree loop before angling it back, to keep it as compact as possible, whether the lower line curves could be smoothed out so that it emerges earlier (ie more to the right) from the tunnel mouth, or maybe even bridging there. The space between out and back could be used for storage lines, either extra or replacing some of the partly visible section. (I have a 270 degree loop on my own layout in 2 different locations and i realised a bit late I could have smoothed them all out much more than I did, 😞).

Good call, @RobinofLoxley. I've adjusted the uppermost of those two lines back under the station board, and smoothed the curvature of the reversing loop. (but see * below). The gradients and minimum clearance levels all still work.  Not yet added extra storage lines under the station, not least because although there's sufficient clearance to run trains, at the moment, there's no hidden turnouts (and thus reduced likelihood of derailments or electrical problems). Adding storage lines may compromise that. I'm thinking that line running along the front will be backed by a retaining wall, made removable by velcro strips, so if I need to access the now hidden line behind it, I can do so. (the reversing balloon itself is 60mm below storage yard level, so max clearance at that end is 110mm). Additionally, this hidden line at 1.7% drop to the balloon means any storage roads would be on a slope, so ok for pure storage (including loco) I guess.

*I'm still torn between the smoother reversing loop, and the fold-down version illustrated in previous posts, as the fold-down version is made simpler by track crossing at 90 degrees - which of course in some ways sits better with more curves to get the right angle.

12 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

The branch concept is always working. It it possible to have an interchange at the left hand end of the proposed through station and still get enough height along the rear wall to clear the reverse loop?

I haven't experimented with this (yet) but the  branch and twin main lines rise at the same rate up to that top left corner (50mm above storage yard level). Then the station remains level at 50mm, whereas the branch continues to climb, currently at 1.7% round to the bottom right corner at +145mm, then levels across the hinged section to the branch station. So two thoughts to achieve your idea of an interchange: 1. continue the incline further across the hinged section to allow more length for the incline at that end and/or 2. as branch trains will be short, I could flatten the branch section behind the thru station (even possibly with a high level platform)  and then increase the incline beyond that point, maybe to 3%. I shall doodle.

12 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Lastly, do draw out the main station properly to check the concept, before going on.

11 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Particularly because you have to turn back at the through station - you will find that pointwork will eat up the available length very quickly!

Paul.

Yes, my next step will be to draw out the station. I am willing to accept 4 coach trains + loco, and all storage roads will accept at least that.

Two things I have in mind:

1. as the left hand end of the station will go under the station building/forecourt, there could be hidden, imaginary platforms beyond that point, so only part of the stationary train will be visible. So subject to storage roads, I could potentially run slightly longer trains. Although I accept I may wish to factor in cross-overs to enable run-rounds for terminating trains.

2. my current layout is 3.5 m long and along one wall is a 4-platform high level terminus (60 cm wide board) whose terminating end also goes under a high level building/forecourt (albeit with not quite enough space to achieve the 90 degree turn necessary for similar feature in a through format) . Along this 3.5m wall, I also have squeezed in a small goods yard (3 roads) and goods/parcels run round loop, and a 3 road loco facility. The only bit of this that I find 'tight' is really the length of goods roads. So I'm hoping that the extra 1.7m length I have in the new room will allow me to address not only the through station bend but also ease the goods facilities. But I totally accept, the proof is in the eating. So more doodling.

 

BTW, the extension (of which the new train room is part) is now only about 3 weeks away from completion... meaning planning edges ever closer towards actual reality. Well, after wardrobe building, bathroom fittings fixing, picture hanging etc.

Ian

Edited March 19, 2023 by ITG
add plan

[ITG]

Ah, belatedly thought of a glitch with teh concept of pushing that upper front line back under the station board.

Alhough by the time it crosses directly under the through mainline tracks, the clearance is around 100mm, to the left of that, the (orange dotted hidden) line is rising back up to datum 0.  So, about a metre to the left of the current underpassing as shown in the plan, that clearance is only 80mm, so is the final point at which that line can be 'under' the upperboard.

More tweaking required.

[RJS1977]

Personally I would think it better for the two tracks to remain parallel for as long as possible, so that they can be visible as another stretch of double track main line (otherwise you just have a single track line that trains only go along one way).

 

You might even be able to have a set of low-level platforms (or an island platform) as an adjunct to the higher station above. If you start the tunnel at the point (or a little before) the two tracks of the reversing loop diverge, you would have room for two trains to be hidden in the reversing loop and two more stopped in the station platforms.

 

My father's layout has a hidden reversing loop on a 3' x 4' baseboard, which is capable of completely concealing two trains, each up to four coaches plus loco. In automatic mode, one train is always kept just inside the exit tunnel mouth (Section 13) by a MERG HECTOR (infra red detector) unit which operates a relay to isolate the section when the front of the train reaches HECTOR. When the front of the second train enters the tunnel (Section 12), it activates a reed switch, which in turn energises a relay bistable, bypassing the Section 13 relay, and causing the train in Section 13 to set off. When the second train is about to enter Section 13, it trips another reed switch, de-energising the bistable and putting HECTOR back in charge of controlling Section 13.

If the first train fails to leave Section 13 for some reason, HECTOR continues to detect it, isolating a short length of track at the end of Section 12, preventing the second train from rearending the first. 

[ITG]

10 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

Personally I would think it better for the two tracks to remain parallel for as long as possible, so that they can be visible as another stretch of double track main line (otherwise you just have a single track line that trains only go along one way).

 

You might even be able to have a set of low-level platforms (or an island platform) as an adjunct to the higher station above. If you start the tunnel at the point (or a little before) the two tracks of the reversing loop diverge, you would have room for two trains to be hidden in the reversing loop and two more stopped in the station platforms.

 

My father's layout has a hidden reversing loop on a 3' x 4' baseboard, which is capable of completely concealing two trains, each up to four coaches plus loco. In automatic mode, one train is always kept just inside the exit tunnel mouth (Section 13) by a MERG HECTOR (infra red detector) unit which operates a relay to isolate the section when the front of the train reaches HECTOR. When the front of the second train enters the tunnel (Section 12), it activates a reed switch, which in turn energises a relay bistable, bypassing the Section 13 relay, and causing the train in Section 13 to set off. When the second train is about to enter Section 13, it trips another reed switch, de-energising the bistable and putting HECTOR back in charge of controlling Section 13.

If the first train fails to leave Section 13 for some reason, HECTOR continues to detect it, isolating a short length of track at the end of Section 12, preventing the second train from rearending the first. 

Thanks for the comments.

On yesterdays version, the two tracks were parallel up to where they diverged for the reverse balloon. As I’m planning on using iTrain, automation of the type you suggest is on the menu.

Because of the clearance issues, I think I may need to return to the parallel lines concept (which is what music fans may think Blondie had in mind some years back), but I’ll certainly explore if adding platforms is viable. They would have to be on an incline, as those two lines drop from 0 on the left to 60mm below on the right, with the yet-to-be-added station sitting +50mm, or max clearance of 110mm. A gradient of 1.7% although I may be able to ease that slightly, by reducing clearances.

Ian

[ITG]

On 18/03/2023 at 21:14, RobinofLoxley said:

Lastly, do draw out the main station properly to check the concept, before going on.

 

On 18/03/2023 at 22:12, 5BarVT said:

Particularly because you have to turn back at the through station - you will find that pointwork will eat up the available length very quickly!

Paul.

Well, I've had a go at sketching out the through station. In fact, I've used the trackplan from my existing layout, but stretched to utilise the additional space, and changed the terminus into a through station, really by extending the terminating lines under a higher-level buildings/forecourt (shown as the yellow area) to become part of the roundy twin track. Of course, I may not actually use this design, but I wanted to see what was possible.

It all fits what I'm aspring to.... multi-platform busy station, access to multiple platforms from various approach lines, run-round faciltiies for terminating trains, decent sized goods  yard and some loco faciltiies.

But now considering what additional other suggestions have been made.....

On 19/03/2023 at 12:42, RJS1977 said:

You might even be able to have a set of low-level platforms (or an island platform) as an adjunct to the higher station above.

I could (potentially) fit in additional lower level exchange platforms on the orange lines which lead to the reversing loop (to which incidentally, I've added a storage loop), as shown at B. This would allow trains to stop there, then move into the hidden loop to pause, before returning later. But such platform(s) - if I added them would be on a 2% incline, access by steps/lift from the higher station.

 

And / or

On 18/03/2023 at 21:14, RobinofLoxley said:

It it possible to have an interchange at the left hand end of the proposed through station and still get enough height along the rear wall to clear the reverse loop?

I could add a branch platform at A. I've adjusted the gradients so that the blue branch line stays at +50mm height for 1.4m, the same as the main station, and then climbs onwards around to the branch station. But this does compromise the uppermost track of the station, as this was intended to be a goods loop, allowing shunting, run-round for and access to the goods sidings. If I added the extra branch platform, is it feasible that one side of said platofrm would serve the branch, and the other would be used for access to the goods yard? Maybe by doubling up as a parcels platform.

 

As always, thoughts most welcome.

Ian

[RJS1977]

If you could bring the branch line forwards a couple of inches, you could put the platform behind it, so that you have three tracks between the two platforms, with the centre one being the goods line.

Also, with the platforms that way round (and no physical connection between the branch and main lines here), the tracks/platforms don't even need to be at the same level, so you could maintain the original gradient profile.

[ITG]

17 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

If you could bring the branch line forwards a couple of inches, you could put the platform behind it, so that you have three tracks between the two platforms, with the centre one being the goods line.

Also, with the platforms that way round (and no physical connection between the branch and main lines here), the tracks/platforms don't even need to be at the same level, so you could maintain the original gradient profile.

Interesting and workable idea, thanks.