New room,new ideas please.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 11/01/2023 at 23:38, Chimer said:

As promised .... mostly for my own enjoyment ...

 

 

 

Here you have a low-level double track roundy-roundy dogbone (brown) with a double junction top right leading via a gradient (green) to a high-level terminus (add own design from point marked T).  A 1.8% grade will get you high enough to clear the low-level tracks by the intersection point near T, you could carry on climbing for a while to increase the vertical separation between terminus and the storage loops, which can be added as desired between points A and B.

 

Return to terminus is achieved by using the purple tracks through the station area which act as reversing loops.  Using DC you would stop a train in the platform and switch over so power comes from the other end, driving on in the same direction with the controller reversed.  With DCC, I believe you would use an auto-reverse module, but I've never investigated how that works or how to wire it.

 

I have used 22" and 24" radius to from the ends of the dogbone.  In practice I would probably use R3 set-track curves with little fiddles to increase the clearance as necessary to avoid conflicts, but these take ages to draw accurately .....

 

Cheers, Chris

 

It's been done (and @Harlequin's subsequent comment about how little space is left for people is clear too):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGvg9v5zLdA&list=PL5kbxwPyEViQ0jB09Uct4NC4vK2zYsF5D&index=5

 

Link to the heldvomerdbeerfeld channel on YouTube, layout tour begins around 3.30 if you want to skip the preamble which I think is explaining in German how little space there is in the layout room, Keith.

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[ITG]

23 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

It's been done (and @Harlequin's subsequent comment about how little space is left for people is clear too):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGvg9v5zLdA&list=PL5kbxwPyEViQ0jB09Uct4NC4vK2zYsF5D&index=5

 

Link to the heldvomerdbeerfeld channel on YouTube, layout tour begins around 3.30 if you want to skip the preamble which I think is explaining in German how little space there is in the layout room, Keith.

 

Well, Keith, I don’t speak a word of German but I think I get the drift. 
My own domestic planning permission “suggests” not too much layout (ie the backside of backscenes) should be visible through the front window, and I think if I were to adopt this German approach, I would contravene that big time.

It would be rather claustrophobic as well, and as for the hanging wire supports from the ceiling…..

As they say on that telly programme, “I’m out”.

Ian

[Harlequin]

14 hours ago, ITG said:

Thank you, Phil.

As an immediate reaction, my logical side fully gets what you’re suggesting. As you say, it satisfies two key factors, the doorway avoidance and the reduced space utilisation of a single balloon loop.

But my ‘other’ side (not sure what to call it!) really struggles to let go of a continuous run.  Yes, automation could handle the type of layout you suggest, but I’d prefer to see multiple trains on longer imaginary journeys, even if that means several circuits of the same tracks. ITrain can handle entry to, then a defined number of circuits, and on to exit from, and stop. I think that’s why I favour a terminus station, where trains have to leave the main circuits, so that the repetition of round’n’round doesn’t extend to the station. *but see below

My thinking hadn’t really included any fiddling off scene, so the hidden yard became more storage than fiddle. I guess in your suggestion, providing it was a yard of loops rather than sidings, the locos could run round and reverse on the reverse loop, but, as drawn, wouldn't that entail entering the main line, over the crossover and back down again. ( Unless I could find a way of a reverse loop at the lower level.)

 

However, I shall reflect on your idea, and try to rationalise/balance/consolidate my logical and ‘other’ thoughts, across all the various suggestions. I know I’m going to have to compromise, but just don’t where and how yet.

 

 

*I think I’m going to have a closer look at a looped 8 continuous run, as has been recently suggested on other threads. Maybe seeing how a diagonal end span from the left of the door and into the top right corner will fit (even if that means a sharp hidden U turn).

 

All much appreciated.

Ian

 

Perhaps you need to list the possible solutions with the pros and cons of each one to help decide how to proceed.

 

Here are a few more thoughts about a terminus to fiddle yard of the type I showed:

• I think that the journey that a train takes leaving the terminus and around the U shape is about the right distance to give a sense of setting off on a long journey. It would pass several different features, build up a good speed, then disappear to places unknown - just as if you were standing watching in the real world.
• There could be a number of trains moving at any one time: One departing and one approaching passing each other. Maybe a goods train trundling slowly along a parallel goods reception line at the same time. Maybe a shunter at work in the goods yard and maybe a station pilot moving empty coaching stock around in the terminus.
• There is room for a turning triangle at the far end of the storage yard so locos could automatically turn under iTrain control without you needing to touch them. That could get rid of the need for any reversing loop, thus making the helix simpler.

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Harlequin

[RJS1977]

12 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

It's been done (and @Harlequin's subsequent comment about how little space is left for people is clear too):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGvg9v5zLdA&list=PL5kbxwPyEViQ0jB09Uct4NC4vK2zYsF5D&index=5

 

Link to the heldvomerdbeerfeld channel on YouTube, layout tour begins around 3.30 if you want to skip the preamble which I think is explaining in German how little space there is in the layout room, Keith.

 

 

Though could the top  loop be pushed further into the corner, and the bottom one possibly reduced to single track, to create more room?

Edited February 2, 2023 by RJS1977

[ITG]

Still exploring…….

I have a specific question, which hopefully one or two folk may have direct experience of.

In my (theoretical) layout planning so far, I have avoided placing turnouts on inclines, for fear of risk of connectivity issues between blades, frogs, wheels etc. I’m well aware of the problems which can arise if a turnout is not ‘flat’  and firmly ‘grounded’ such that there is no movement in the turnout trackbase. But what happens if a turnout is firmly grounded but not on level flat track?

Turnouts would be electrofrog, with switched frogs, either with frog juicers or with motors with frog switching. They are also modified in the traditional way to link blades to rails. Inclines would be very close to, if not exactly, 2%. 
In my current layout, turnouts and inclines give me no running problems whatsoever , but I have no turnouts ON an incline.

 

Should I be able to expect no difference in running quality on turnouts on an incline versus on level flat ground?

thanks

Ian

[RobinofLoxley]

Good question. Its one of those things that people tell you not to do. I'm going to have turnouts on a much smaller incline, about 0.5%, in the last part of my build, so near to flat as makes little difference I hope. I could see a side to side slope being problematic but not one in the plane of the track. Divert is somewhere between the two.

[ITG]

Taking bits and pieces from each of your various suggestions, (@Chimer and @RobinofLoxley in particular will see their influences), I have a draft plan which seems workable. I appreciate this won't be everyone's cuppa, but as I said at the onset, I am keen to include the folllowing key elements, in no particular order:

1. twin track roundy main line, but with a feel of trains going somewhere

2. a decent sized station and goods yard

3. reversing loop

4. storage yard

5. maximising the benefits of automation via iTrain, along with manual shunting

6. avoids a duck-under

7. allows a small workbench area

In this draft, curves are using R2, R3 and R4, and will be mostly hidden. Maybe I will be able to expand some to use minimum R3, we'll see. But all my current stock handles R2 perfectly well, and also does so with the gradients I envisage.

The basic design is a looped 8, shown in orange. Exiting the storage yard to the right at datum level, the top loop curves back on itself with approx 2.3% incline to +80mm, and then will run along hugging the rear wall and round the perimeter to curve round in the bottom loop area, which in turn connects to the left end of the storage yard. The inner bends are downward. Much of this will be hidden. The curve-over in the top loop gives the opportunity to have a reversing loop  via the link road (in green).

The double junction enables a twin track main line (in deep pink) to the terminus station (not shown); this terminus approach also curves back on itself directly above the bottom loop. Because these two bottom loops are open on the side (where the doorway is), and also the front, I anticipate this will allow access if needed.

A single loop line in green provides a reverse loop link, but in the opposite direction to the other reverse loop. The gradient up to the station at +180mm height is around 2.1%.

The station will be able to extend all along the 5.2m top wall, above the storage yard, on a board sitting 180mm above the yard. The twin track and link line running behind the station, I may keep open, dropped into a cutting with retaining walls either side. These tracks start on the right at +80mm, but fall at approx 2% to +30mm before disappearing into a tunnel in the top left corner, and then under the high level station approach roads.

Probably both top and bottom loop areas will have removable scenic lids on them. 

The walk-through gaps between the top and bottom loops, and the north and south boards, (into the operating area) are all around 600mm or more.

So it has ticked pretty much all my boxes, albeit with a lot of track-filled baseboard! Thats ok for me.

 

There's some fine-tuning, straightening, balancing out of spaces etc still to do.

Not necessarily the final plan (that would be rash!) but feels like I'm getting closer.

Ian

[RobinofLoxley]

Well done on this. Lots of work to get there. A really clever use of doubling up so to speak. The terminus area is going to be large with a lot of space for everything. 

 

Personally I'm not sure how the bottom section works - (not the lower level) where you have scribed bottom loops - from the visual aspect not the functional. A lot of area there devoted to climbing track - can it be made scenic?

[ITG]

3 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Personally I'm not sure how the bottom section works - (not the lower level) where you have scribed bottom loops - from the visual aspect not the functional.

Using the term “loops” refers to the orange (mostly obscured, almost full circle) which is the continuous run, and the vivid pink terminus branch. The continuous circuit runs directly under the terminus branch, not only the “loop round” itself, but also along the left wall. The orange continuous run then is climbing from datum to 80mm along the top wall. The pink climbs from datum at the double junction to 80mm above the orange loop, and eventually up to 180mm at the station approach top left. (I accept I’m going to have a lot of hidden track).

I get what you mean about the visual aspect question. I may try to mock up a 1/4 scale model of card to see how it all looks. I may have to be quite inventive. Maybe tunnels on both the orange and pink tracks, just prior to where they coincide vertically; I think there’s enough horizontal separation between the parallel twin tracks to make that feasible. Albeit may look a bit Swiss Alpine railway!

 

[RobinofLoxley]

What happens in 3D view? BTW forgot to add round of applause for fitting in the return loops in such a straightforward way at the end of something quite complex, but wondered how the upper one is for gradient?   OK I got it!

Edited February 22, 2023 by RobinofLoxley

[ITG]

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

What happens in 3D view? BTW forgot to add round of applause for fitting in the return loops in such a straightforward way at the end of something quite complex, but wondered how the upper one is for gradient?   OK I got it!

Here's a couple of extracts of 3D views. Rather crude, and not helped by the fact that, as Ive drawn it, Anyrail shows the entire room as a single surface, ie with no operating well. And for some reason, it insists on inserting two single mouth tunnels when a double is required. Even when I used an object (Metcalfe tunnel mouth) it doesnt show in the 3D  version. The second of the two screen shots shows a view towards that lower curve-back, and the three tunnel mouths; and then the first shows looking the opposite way into the bottom left corner. I think I need to either disguise the sharp curves there in some way, and/or see if I can ease them. And seperate that single link track that enters the single tunnel there.

Edited February 22, 2023 by ITG
added info

[ITG]

4 minutes ago, ITG said:

And seperate that single link track that enters the single tunnel there.

 

Actually, I could hide that entire link line by starting the junction further back, and pushing where it connects further along the left wall, effectively hiding it all. Not sure what that may do to gradients and access to a hidden turnout. More pondering of options.

[ITG]

I’ve now spent time fine-tuning and adjusting, and I’m having second thoughts, mainly about how much of the continuous run is actually out of sight. After all, I do want to view trains!

The storage yard, understandably, is hidden below the terminus, but the continuous tracks behind the station seem to allow two options.

1. I try to leave them exposed, but they’ll be on an incline in a cutting so won’t be exactly truly visible, obscured by station architecture etc. Plus, the far side of the cutting will be tricky to model, being right up against the room wall. I can only foresee the vertical (brick/stone) wall of the cutting, with virtually nothing above it except a back scene. If I tried to model any low relief buildings there, the depth required would push that side of both levels of the layout further out, thus widening the baseboard. OR

2. I cover those tracks completely, possibly with a road and (low relief) buildings, thus increasing the amount of hidden run.

 

Turning to the other side of the room, and the end wall,  much of the continuous run path is directly below the the terminus approach roads. So, not really presenting an opportunity to sit back and view trains.

 

As I said in an earlier post, my rather busy plan did tick a lot of my wish list boxes, but a major “untick” against viewing trains, alternating as they would be via iTrain.

At least, when I’m arguing with myself, it never comes to blows!

Ian

[RobinofLoxley]

I think maybe youve found that there are some flaws in the concept. Looking at it again there are quite a few areas where the higher level is in front of the lower which will obscure it, but without the plan file its hard to be sure. Suppose you interchanged the positions of the pink and orange lines, moved the double junction to the bottom left but parallel-ish to the bottom wall, can you still fit in a link that works as a reversing loop? For example, replacing the outer turnout of the double junction with a slip at one end, joining the opposite line much higher up on the left.

 

Second, and again I cant exactly work out what happens with the gradients, can the upper loop connection line in green be rerouted from behind the orange track to in front of it, even if that requires it to cross lines further round?  Easier then to route the pink lines to the back of the layout, as the orange lines can be eased in a bit. Its always problematic with layers as you need them to be visible for manipulation, which may result in them being mis-positioned.

[ITG]

14 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Suppose you interchanged the positions of the pink and orange lines, moved the double junction to the bottom left but parallel-ish to the bottom wall, can you still fit in a link that works as a reversing loop? For example, replacing the outer turnout of the double junction with a slip at one end, joining the opposite line much higher up on the left.

To be honest, I haven’t posted what would be an overload of variations. One of which was to swap the pink and orange lines on the bottom end of the plan. The swap is doable, (which I’ll have another look at) as is swapping points for slips, but tinkering with where interlinking lines join to make the reversing loop is much trickier, owing to differences in height and resultant inclines.

 

14 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Second, and again I cant exactly work out what happens with the gradients, can the upper loop connection line in green be rerouted from behind the orange track to in front of it, even if that requires it to cross lines further round?

Does this question refer to the top wall run of the plan, or the bottom end? If the former, I did think about this but it doesn’t fundamentally alter much. In my latest tweak, I moved the left hand end of where the green line connects back to orange, around the corner (on to the west wall). This then simplified the gradients because that green line then ends and starts at datum level  - hence no incline on it, as the orange lines had dropped back to datum at that point.

If you refer to the lower green line, this too I moved up around the corner to near the double junction,  which then meant moving where it connects back to the main lines right round the backside of the storage yard, in order to get the gradient right.

 

The key to unlocking this problem of too much hidden track might be, as you suggest, to try to separate tiers of track away from running either above one another, or, a low level being hidden behind a higher level. But to do so does put pressure on baseboard width, and/or, shortening the storage roads so as to allow the tiering effect on the west wall, ie the SY roads curve downwards earlier.

thanks for your input.

Ian

[ITG]

Been having another look, challenged by questions and observations from @RobinofLoxley as to if it is possible to somehow alleviate the problem of so much hidden track on the last published version of the plan. In trying to do this, and also stick to my aspiration of a twin track roundy, in a folded 8 dogbone format and without having a duck-under/lift-up section, it does end up rather busy in terms of track coverage. Not to your taste, did I hear? And maybe I won't go with this, but I wanted to push the boundaries to see what the 'maximum' might look like. After all, this will be a near permanent in-house layout, with most visitors being non-modelling friends, so its me I have to satisfy.

 

So what's changed? I have juggled the topographical order in which tracks emanate from key junctions, thus pushing higher level tracks to the rear of the boards. This in turn allowed some tracks directly below others to be brought forward, and thus becoming visible. In doing these two things, it has changed where/how some of the gradients are, but the vast majority are around 2%, and maximums of 2.5%.

 

In the three representations of the layout plan that follows, track colours are as follows:

Bright pink - the terminus station (at +180mm, which sits above the storage yard, from point TS onwards, but is not drawn on these diagrams) and its approach lines. The spiral back to the junction at 2%.

Grey - these tracks, including the storage yard, are all level at datum 0.

Orange - the upper dogbone, which starts at datum, rises to +80mm, and then drops down to link to the storage yard at 0.

Turquoise - the lower dogbone, which also starts at datum 0, and drops to -50mm ( to allow clearance of the station approaches directly above it in the lower loop) before rising back in its U-turn

Green - these are the two reversing loops, one facing in each direction. Because of the way in which the upper orange dogbone folds across itself, these link tracks do not have to actually take the form of the traditional U of a reversing loop. The uppermost of the two maintains datum level, whilst the lower one drops at 2.4% from +80mm on the right to datum where it rejoins the main line on the left. 

 

First the complete plan (omitting the station). The 4 tracks (2 orange and 2 green) behind the station are currently shown as visible, but they will lie in a cutting. As stated above, the green one at the top is level at 0, whilst the 3 others drop from 80mm to 0.

An option might be to completely cover these, making it a high street. If I leave them open, not sure how to treat it scenically, apart from it being a steep-sided brick or stone cutting. With the station at +180mm, the cutting walls would be 100mm at one end, and potentially 180mm at the other, although its likely these lower lines will have disappeared into a tunnel before that differentail is apparent. A compromise may be to cover/hide only the rear flat track, leaving the other 3 open. This would allow a little more space above it next to the wall, for scenery, as well as make the appearance of the three remaining tracks somewhat simpler, as they all share the same gradient.

 

 

[ITG]

And now the plan,showing only visible tracks. I really don't mind a degree of hidden track as representing the rest of the UK railway network. Of course, the storage yard itself allows trains to hide, but the coming and going of trains in and out of visibility also supports that notion, as well as fragmenting the roundy-roundy effect.

 

I have left part of the dogbones open, simply becasue I can, and to ease access, and to allow glimpses of trains.

[ITG]

Finally, the hidden track areas. Not too worried about access to the storage yard below the station, as it is 180mm gross clearance (less when factoring in board thickness, point motors etc), which compares with 150mm on the current layout. As I can access derailments or cleaning on this, that should be ok. Fixing point motor failures etc under the top board may be a challenge, but I plan to make board sectional and movable for such eventualities.

The hidden turquoise track in the lower dogbone is accessible from 2 sides, so hopefully ok.

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi there, thanks for these - the fact they’re easier to follow (for me at least) also indicates the plan is moving forwards: in my experience easier to follow should mean easier to build.  The one thing that still jumps out at me is that the four open lines running downhill (left to right) at the top of the plan seem hidden behind the terminus track.  As this is the longest straight run on the plan it seems a shame (if I’ve understood it right).  Not sure what to suggest though, sorry.

 

The bottom section of the plan does start to look a bit like one of those traditional “bowl of spaghetti” designs from years ago, but there’s no harm in that at all if it delivers what you want: would certainly be fun to watch in operation.

 

One question if I may: how accessible / useable are the three single ended storage sidings under the upper reversing loop? I’d be tempted to dispense with them and store additional stock off the layout.  Just a thought.  Hope that’s Ok, Keith.

[5BarVT]

Do you need both green reversing lines?  The inner one is just an “unreversing” line giving an alternative single loop round the bottom level.  If you don’t need it, it would reduce complexity a little and make construction slightly easier.

Paul.

Edited March 2, 2023 by 5BarVT
Mis Tryping

[ITG]

13 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi there, thanks for these - the fact they’re easier to follow (for me at least) also indicates the plan is moving forwards: in my experience easier to follow should mean easier to build.  The one thing that still jumps out at me is that the four open lines running downhill (left to right) at the top of the plan seem hidden behind the terminus track.  As this is the longest straight run on the plan it seems a shame (if I’ve understood it right).  Not sure what to suggest though, sorry.

 

The bottom section of the plan does start to look a bit like one of those traditional “bowl of spaghetti” designs from years ago, but there’s no harm in that at all if it delivers what you want: would certainly be fun to watch in operation.

 

One question if I may: how accessible / useable are the three single ended storage sidings under the upper reversing loop? I’d be tempted to dispense with them and store additional stock off the layout.  Just a thought.  Hope that’s Ok, Keith.

Thanks for the comments.

Fully share your thoughts about the long run behind the terminus, but as yet cannot find a way round that.

Those storage sidings are intended for either DMUs or spare locos, (if I choose to change locos for departures from the storage loops). But if I go ahead with this incarnation, I’ll be reviewing that sort of thing as I build.

Ian

9 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Do you need both green reversing lines?  The inner one is just an “unreversing” line giving an alternative single loop round the bottom level.  If you don’t need it, it would reduce complexity a little and make construction slightly easier.

Paul.

Well spotted. I’ve been thinking about that. I pinched the idea of the twin reversing facility from @Bloodnok ‘s Dongits layout. When I was juggling with the base plan, I wasn’t sure where any goods or loco facilities might end up, relative to where the passenger station was. That is to say, there may have been departures from somewhere else on the layout other than the terminus station, so therefore I’d potentially wish to reverse trains from the other direction.

In this version of a potential layout plan, it seems unlikely I would need it, so may omit it. It’s a simple Anyrail task to do so, and doesn’t alter any inclines elsewhere as it mirrors the same path/gradient as the twin tracks next to it. Very much a case of watch this space…

Ian

[Harlequin]

It's very clever, Ian! 👏

 

It will take a long time and a lot of effort to get the track laid with all those gradients and different levels. You will need a lot of motivation over a long period to get something working.

 

Is there enough storage capacity for the size of the layout?

 

[ITG]

20 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

It's very clever, Ian! 👏

 

It will take a long time and a lot of effort to get the track laid with all those gradients and different levels. You will need a lot of motivation over a long period to get something working.

 

Is there enough storage capacity for the size of the layout?

 

Thanks for the compliment Phil. 
Yup, don’t I know it? It will be a challenge, and whilst I’m fortunate to have time, space and resources…. I wouldn’t class myself as a master carpenter. I’ve always used commercially available modular laser cut boards, which of course I can do so in some areas, but recognise that the gradients will need a different approach.

Re storage, I don’t have Anyrail open at the moment, but if I recall my calculations correctly, all the storage roads can hold a 4 coach train plus loco, which is what I had to factor in. Although there’s potentially a long 5+ m wall for the terminus to sit along, because it seems all facilities (passenger, goods, loco etc) will have to be in that space, having the same train length limit  would be relevant.

 

Some stop press…… now that the building work is coming to an end, the domestic planning permission authorities have spotted that the door into the hobby room (from the lounge) is recessed, due to that wall formerly being an outside wall and thus thicker. So she is now reflecting that maybe it would have been better if the door had been hung on the lounge side, and opened into the lounge… not the hobby room. Luckily, it’s not too late to make that change, as decorating has not yet started. Now, let me ponder- what do I think about that door opening outwards away from the hobby room?  Watch this space, as that completely changes the usable space!

Ian

[Bloodnok]

On 08/02/2023 at 19:21, ITG said:

I have a specific question, which hopefully one or two folk may have direct experience of.

In my (theoretical) layout planning so far, I have avoided placing turnouts on inclines, for fear of risk of connectivity issues between blades, frogs, wheels etc. I’m well aware of the problems which can arise if a turnout is not ‘flat’  and firmly ‘grounded’ such that there is no movement in the turnout trackbase. But what happens if a turnout is firmly grounded but not on level flat track?

Turnouts would be electrofrog, with switched frogs, either with frog juicers or with motors with frog switching. They are also modified in the traditional way to link blades to rails. Inclines would be very close to, if not exactly, 2%.
In my current layout, turnouts and inclines give me no running problems whatsoever , but I have no turnouts ON an incline.

 

Should I be able to expect no difference in running quality on turnouts on an incline versus on level flat ground?

 

Turnouts on consistent inclines isn't a problem. Turnouts on vertical curves (places where the gradient changes) *is* a problem.

[RobinofLoxley]

I wasnt expecting to have time today but apart from the comment about the reversing loop line which I agree with, I think the whole thing has got a bit overcomplex for what it is trying to achieve. Gradients everywhere. So I hope I'm not being problematic by posting another suggestion. I looked at ways to eliminate some of the gradients and try and get an outcome where the highest elevation lines are always at the back where possible. Its not finished in the sense that I havnt put the yard in, although I am using some of the reversing section as dual purpose. However, it has sorted out the access for the terminus in my opinion. I set the height at 6mm where the rising line crosses, and 14 for the rise to the terminus. The gradients on the rising line are under 2% and then 2.4-2.7% up to the terminus, with the straight section at the top being level, so room for manoevre there.   I think 14mm for the terminus is more than OK given the lines under it are at zero.