New room,new ideas please.

[ITG]

Thanks again @RobinofLoxley. Your suggestion does seem to have simplified it, although I’d need to check how much space is used by the storage roads being angled diagonally, and what that did to the walk through gap.

 

That said, as I suggested in my last post, after a definite and decisive pre-condition which banned the idea of the access door opening into the lounge (meaning it opened into the train room), now the boss has seen the door frame (and the depth of the recess in what was an external wall), she would now prefer to see the lounge-side view of the closed door being flush with the wall. Meaning it has to open into the lounge. (Well, now that’s what the Chippie said when I passed on the boss’ message about the recess, and I’m not about to challenge that!).

 

So although this has to be seen in practice, it now means that potentially my whole idea of needing to avoid that bottom right corner (due to combination of door opening and workbench space) is up for a rethink. I’m sure I can site a workbench elsewhere (maybe below the board, possibly slide out), but the main new factor is that I could now have a lift-out / hinge-up section across the access doorway. The distance from door frame to corner in that right corner is 63cm, just enough for a 2nd & 3rd radius curve with crossing the baseboard join at right angles. Thus allowing the continuous run to go around the perimeter of the room.

 

Mind you, the previous restrictions have given me a taste for folded-8s, so I may not ditch the previous learning completely. But the fact that the continuous run and/or station approach can go around the perimeter will ease gradients, clearance heights and radii.

 

To use a cliche…. Back to the drawing board. But I’m glad this mind-set change came now - I’d have hated to have heard the words “I wish we’d had that door opening the other way” after I’d sweated and cursed trying to cut baseboard gradients and angles!

[ITG]

Assuming the door is reversed (as described in my earlier update), here's another evolving plan which makes use of the previously unused corner, by introducing a lift-up section across the doorway.

Plan 1 shows the wholelayout (except the terminus station which will link to the purple/pink tracks across the top, at +185mm above datum (0). 

Green is the roundy-circuit, part of which across the top is hidden below the terminus. This green circuit is at +80mm over on the right, where it links to a double-double junction, one element of which goes to the terminus; th eothe rpart linsk to orange lines down to a storage yard and reversing loop, all at datum. To provide a little more access height to the rear roads of the storage yard, the green line rises to +90mm.

The orange tracks leading to the storage yard run alongside the (not shown) terminus, falling from +80mm on the right to almost 0mm, before dispaearing into a tunnel below the terminus, which curves round to feed the storage yard.

 

I'm not yet sure how the hinged lift-up section across the door in the bottom right corner will work, as I'd prefer rail joints across board joints to be at 90 degrees, and the distance between the corner and the door is around 63cm. So getting a 4 track 90 degree bend in probably means the lifting section being hinged on the end wall, making it a sizable section.

 

Maximum gradients are around 2%.

 

Plan 2 shows only the visible tracks, which does illustrate that only 3/4 of the roundy circuit is visible. The double-double junction allows trains leaving the terminus to complete over 1/2 a circuit, then go round a full circuit, and into the storage roads - without a turnout change.

 

Plan 3 shows only the hidden tracks. Only the rearmost roads of the storage yard has tracks directly above them, at 90mm clearance. The area above the front most roads can be purely scenic, and could be removable for access.

 

Any thoughts? 

[5BarVT]

I think that could work quite well.

But then I’m biased as it’s remarkably close to what I’m building.

It feels buildable without impossible construction requirements.  It will need to be built from the bottom up and there’s a lot to do before you can run anything as you have to get right up to the terminus before you can return.  Consider whether you could have temporary turn back that can be inserted at interim stages so that you can at least run something.

(An area that with hindsight I didn’t pay sufficient attention to!)
Paul.

[RJS1977]

On 03/03/2023 at 09:49, RobinofLoxley said:

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.

The blue and pink loop looks to be a difficult combination of curves and gradients to me.

 

I'd be inclined (sorry!) to eliminate the bridge at this point by keeping the purple tracks to the front rather than having the figure 8.

 

That way, either the entire continuous run could be on the flat, with just the line to the terminus on a gradient, or that end of the continuous run could be higher than the other end, to lessen the gradient to the terminus.

[RobinofLoxley]

56 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

The blue and pink loop looks to be a difficult combination of curves and gradients to me.

 

I'd be inclined (sorry!) to eliminate the bridge at this point by keeping the purple tracks to the front rather than having the figure 8.

 

That way, either the entire continuous run could be on the flat, with just the line to the terminus on a gradient, or that end of the continuous run could be higher than the other end, to lessen the gradient to the terminus.

Yeah I just followed @itg and he had a folded loop so I left it in. This was actually a simplification of previously posted layouts. Previously there were helices and all kinds of weirdness. The lesson of that plan was that if you want a high level terminus off a loop if you can start it from a launch pad it's a lot easier....

[Harlequin]

Playing Devil's Advocate a bit:

 

Why have the terminus at all? Why not have a through station on the main roundy-round circuit instead? That would be a lot simpler, the roundy-round would be entirely visible, entirely scenic if you wanted, the station would have more room and could be just as interesting as a terminus operationally, if not more so.

 

Trains would run in exactly the same way as with a terminus: out of storage round the reversing loop, up from the FY level clockwise, round as many times as required, terminate in the station, run round or change locos, run anti-clockwise as many times as required and head back down to the FY.

 

The reversing loop might be better in the top right where it wouldn't intrude into the space so much, with the ramp down to it running clockwise just from the left of the doorway. Then the FY could be long and straight, directly under the main station. (In that case, change the directions of everything I said in the previous paragraph...!) Edit: Ah, that late night idea might not work because of the gradients required.

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Harlequin

[ITG]

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Playing Devil's Advocate a bit:

 

Why have the terminus at all? Why not have a through station on the main roundy-round circuit instead? That would be a lot simpler, the roundy-round would be entirely visible, entirely scenic if you wanted, the station would have more room and could be just as interesting as a terminus operationally, if not more so.

 

Trains would run in exactly the same way as with a terminus: out of storage round the reversing loop, up from the FY level clockwise, round as many times as required, terminate in the station, run round or change locos, run anti-clockwise as many times as required and head back down to the FY.

 

The reversing loop might be better in the top right where it wouldn't intrude into the space so much, with the ramp down to it running clockwise just from the left of the doorway. Then the FY could be long and straight, directly under the main station. (In that case, change the directions of everything I said in the previous paragraph...!) Edit: Ah, that late night idea might not work because of the gradients required.

 

Thanks Phil, interesting idea to swap to a through station. If it had some terminating roads, and possibly an overhead station building / concourse, it would look like, and could be operated as, a terminus.

Regarding your early morning retraction of your late night idea of moving the reversing loop, although I hadn’t got round to thinking about that, the main reason I located the reversing loop near the doorway was that it was then fully open on two sides, meaning access to any issues was easier. If I tucked it into the corner, it’s a little more restricted. That said, maybe the gradient would work, but not to allow so much vertical clearance (as I’d like) between the station and storage yard.

In fact, I woke up this morning wondering if I’d over-complicated the gradients/levels, and if it was possible to flatten out much of the roundy, especially if there was space to take its route round the outside of the reversing loop, as opposed to above it. If I did that, the terminus (putting aside the ‘through’ idea for a minute) climbing approach roads would also have to be outside the loop. That would in turn push the space required out by 4 tracks, ie maybe 25cm. In turn squeezing the walk-through gap.

 

I’m assuming in all my gradient calculations that the hinged lifting section should ideally be level, as the mechanics of it become more complex if one side is higher than the other. Maybe that’s not true…….

 

Ian

[ITG]

10 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Yeah I just followed @itg and he had a folded loop so I left it in. This was actually a simplification of previously posted layouts. Previously there were helices and all kinds of weirdness. The lesson of that plan was that if you want a high level terminus off a loop if you can start it from a launch pad it's a lot easier....

Although, as subsequent posts describe, I’ve moved on somewhat due to the (positive) change in room usage requirements. But if one drops the figure of eight loop, it then complicates how one would include a reversing loop, as it’s that very looping which enables the “straight line” linking road which is in effect the reversing section.

[5BarVT]

1 hour ago, ITG said:

I’m assuming in all my gradient calculations that the hinged lifting section should ideally be level, as the mechanics of it become more complex if one side is higher than the other. Maybe that’s not true…….

Yes and no!  You will lose much more than the length of the flap as you have to transition out and back into the gradient.  If it’s straight across the flap it’s relatively easy to keep a constant gradient across the flap.

No photos yet as construction is still a work in progress but may appear on my thread soon.  Feel free to ask questions there if you want.

Paul.

[Harlequin]

48 minutes ago, ITG said:

Although, as subsequent posts describe, I’ve moved on somewhat due to the (positive) change in room usage requirements. But if one drops the figure of eight loop, it then complicates how one would include a reversing loop, as it’s that very looping which enables the “straight line” linking road which is in effect the reversing section.

 

12 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

Yes and no!  You will lose much more than the length of the flap as you have to transition out and back into the gradient.  If it’s straight across the flap it’s relatively easy to keep a constant gradient across the flap.

No photos yet as construction is still a work in progress but may appear on my thread soon.  Feel free to ask questions there if you want.

Paul.

 

A gate style opening section would allow tracks to cross the doorway on multiple levels, with continuous gradients if required. Could be very useful in your room, Ian.

 

Basic construction is not too difficult - like hanging a door and then fixing some baseboards to it but you do need to think about how the moving baseboards sweep past the fixed parts and alignment when the gate is closed.

 

[St Enodoc]

17 hours ago, ITG said:

I'm not yet sure how the hinged lift-up section across the door in the bottom right corner will work, as I'd prefer rail joints across board joints to be at 90 degrees, and the distance between the corner and the door is around 63cm. So getting a 4 track 90 degree bend in probably means the lifting section being hinged on the end wall, making it a sizable section.

You could arrange the hinge line to be perpendicular to the tracks. There's no rule that says it has to be perpendicular to the wall.

[5BarVT]

5 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

You could arrange the hinge line to be perpendicular to the tracks. There's no rule that says it has to be perpendicular to the wall.

Or that the hinge has to be in line with the track joint.  Mr Andy P, currently of Tonleigh Bridge Yard fame, has the hinge parallel to the wall, most tracks crossing at right angles but the curved bits not in line with the hinges.

Note that his tracks are not the same level at the unhinged side, I think you might get away with not level at the hinged side too.

Paul.

[Michael Hodgson]

Looking at the layout as above, there is a large empty area in the centre of the reversing loop, with only lift-off scenery above it.  There is room for something like a loco shed or some sort of industry in that space, though you'd need to dispense with lift-off scenery above that area to operate it.  Loco hauled trains will arrive in the storage loops with the loco at the right hand end.  So if you envisage any loco changing for the return journey, that's where it would occur.  

 

Another option might be to change the large lifting section to a smaller one adjacent to the door, and a second single track one carrying only the reversing loop into the corner.  You would then be able to make greater use of the bottom level space for a couple of longer fiddle yard sidings if you want to run long double-ended trains like an blue pullman/HST, if you added a crossover to get back on to the correct road somewher on the orange line in the upper part of diagram 2.

[RobinofLoxley]

@ITGis it your intention that the fiddle yard is completely covered? Why do you need to hide it?

 

Looking at the plan I'm struck by the simplification that follows from simply running the reversing loop back across the operating well. Might not be popular?! 

[ITG]

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

A gate style opening section would allow tracks to cross the doorway on multiple levels, with continuous gradients if required. Could be very useful in your room, Ian.

I’m struggling to visualise quite how that might work, with any of the evolving thinking re layout plan. On one side of the doorway channel into the room is the reverse loop board, which I cannot really move along, to crate the space for a swinging section to swing into. On the other side, as there’s only some 60cm, there’s not much space there either.

 

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

You could arrange the hinge line to be perpendicular to the tracks. There's no rule that says it has to be perpendicular to the wall.

Noted. Will experiment with design.

5 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Mr Andy P, currently of Tonleigh Bridge Yard fame, has the hinge parallel to the wall, most tracks crossing at right angles but the curved bits not in line with the hinges.

Good example to peruse.

4 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Looking at the layout as above, there is a large empty area in the centre of the reversing loop, with only lift-off scenery above it.  There is room for something like a loco shed or some sort of industry in that space, though you'd need to dispense with lift-off scenery above that area to operate it.  Loco hauled trains will arrive in the storage loops with the loco at the right hand end.  So if you envisage any loco changing for the return journey, that's where it would occur.  

I guess that would mean considering the storage yard as “on view” (and therefore scenic) which I guess it could be. Good use of spare space.

 

4 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Another option might be to change the large lifting section to a smaller one adjacent to the door, and a second single track one carrying only the reversing loop into the corner.  You would then be able to make greater use of the bottom level space for a couple of longer fiddle yard sidings if you want to run long double-ended trains like an blue pullman/HST, if you added a crossover to get back on to the correct road somewher on the orange line in the upper part of diagram 2.

I’m afraid I can’t quite visualise what you mean. How would the continuous run get across the doorway and round the room?

[ITG]

1 hour ago, RobinofLoxley said:

@ITGis it your intention that the fiddle yard is completely covered? Why do you need to hide it?

 

Looking at the plan I'm struck by the simplification that follows from simply running the reversing loop back across the operating well. Might not be popular?! 

Good question I suppose about visibility of storage yard, although I’m not keen for hand of God fiddling. I can foresee as suggested by @Michael Hodgsonthere is scope to change locos by “on track” movements.

 

My existing layout has a cross-operating-well lift-out bridge with a reversing loop track. Although that room, and thus the well, are smaller than the new opportunity, I constantly find the difficulty comes with sight of uncoupling. Yes, I can operate every other train or loco movement from a stand point of one end of the well, but when I wish to align TL couplings with a servo-driven uncoupling ramp, if that location is at the opposite end of the well, I have to duck under the bridge to be able to get clear line of sight at the right angle to see that alignment. It’s that I’m trying to avoid. (The bridge is removable so that whilst working on the layout - as opposed to running trains - there is more space in the well.)

On the existing layout, the terminus, small goods yard and loco facilities are along a 3.5 m wall, with an operating well that’s around 2.3m long,. The new layout is likely to feature similar (but expanded) station facilities along a 5.2m wall, with a well of some 4m, so the span of sight needed is longer….. thus magnifying the problem I feel I have. Hence reluctant to go that route a second time.

[Michael Hodgson]

38 minutes ago, ITG said:

I’m afraid I can’t quite visualise what you mean. How would the continuous run get across the doorway and round the room?

By moving the right hand semicircle or reversing loop to the right of the doorway, but you then need a second (single track) lifting/hinged flap across your access to the room to connect to the existing plan.  It's not ideal, just an option you could consider.

[RobinofLoxley]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

By moving the right hand semicircle or reversing loop to the right of the doorway, but you then need a second (single track) lifting/hinged flap across your access to the room to connect to the existing plan.  It's not ideal, just an option you could consider.

Surely it needs 2 bridges one as you describe and a second across the well?

[RobinofLoxley]

@ITGI think you will have trouble with the covered fiddle yard. Total clearance is 9cm of which 6 is stock. You won't be able reach the back for a derailment although with careful construction the edge nearest the wall can be mostly open but that will be awkward. That means leaving some of it open?

Edited March 8, 2023 by RobinofLoxley
Complete change of text

[ITG]

12 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

By moving the right hand semicircle or reversing loop to the right of the doorway, but you then need a second (single track) lifting/hinged flap across your access to the room to connect to the existing plan.  It's not ideal, just an option you could consider.

Ah, I could make that second flap simply a diagonal across the top right corner for the reversing loop to turn back on itself. That would mean it would potentially only need to be lifted when access is required to the corner itself. That would mean the sight of uncoupling ramp concern I expressed in my last post wouldn’t be the case.

I shall explore further.

Ian

[ITG]

11 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

@ITGI think you will have trouble with the covered fiddle yard. Total clearance is 9cm of which 6 is stock. You won't be able reach the back for a derailment although with careful construction the edge nearest the wall can be mostly open but that will be awkward. That means leaving some of it open?

 With some tweaking, it may be possible for the 4 tracks (2 pairs of two) at the rear of the storage yard to actually run in a line clear of the furthermost storage road, ie closer to the wall, or push the yard out slightly. That bit isn’t therefore too much of an issue, but as I mentioned in a previous thread, doing so also pushes the reversing loop itself out further, which squeezes the walk-thru gap between the reversing loop board and the station board on the opposite side.

Unless I moved the reversing loop to the top right corner as I think was being suggested by @Michael Hodgson.

[ITG]

11 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Surely it needs 2 bridges one as you describe and a second across the well?

As I now understand it, the second reversing loop bridge could simply be a diagonal across the corner.

[ITG]

Been thinking about the merits of moving the reversing loop in to the top right corner. A factor in locating it in the centre, near the doorway, was that it would have allowed access to the loop, if below an upper board, from 2 sides. Whereas siting the rev loop in a corner really limited access to only one side. 

But what if I made the 'loop' baseboard - or part of it - hinged so that it could fold up/down to allow access into the corner when needed. Or left in a folded position when layout not in use, to allow more floor/access space generally.

 

Plan 1 shows the orange loop sited east/west, and the storage yard would then be on that same upper wall. Thus making the yard straighter, and thus potenially longer. 

Plan 2 shows the orange loop on a north/south basis, with tracks running to/from the storage yard which would still be located on the bottom wall (original room layout).

On both options, I think gradients can be worked out, as the jucntion point back to main circuit could be moved accordingly... I think.

These options could be workable with either a terminus or through main station..... again, I think.

Pink baseboard areas are fixed, yellow are hinged. J = track joint (at 90 degrees) , H = hinge. The grey twin track around the outside is part of the twin track circuit.

Having the rev loop in that corner makes the whole operating well , and access to it, less squeezed. 

I now need to redraw the whole plan to see how either option fits in, but still maintaining other core features and aspirations.

Ian

Edited March 10, 2023 by ITG
added phrase

[RobinofLoxley]

There are definitely some legs in this idea. I think the upper diagram may turn out to be simpler to execute - the junctions will have to be relocated of course.

 

Dont forget that now the entire perimeter is available, the direction can be reversed so that the end of the station can be top left as well as top right.

[ITG]

Another evolving version of my possible plan. Still with the reverse loop in the top corner, but (I think!) I've simplified the plan a little. I also took some inspiration from @Harlequin trackplan for @Newbie2020Lyneworth and Millhampton, specifically the idea of a branch line (blue) leading off the storage yard, encircling the entire room, and a branch station (the pink line at the bottom) sitting partially above the storage yard. The difference is that I've incorporated my (orange) storage yard in the twin junction tracks which lead to the reversing balloon, which itself sits below the through station (the pink lines at the top). Neither station is drawn in, apart from the running lines.

Gradients are limited to 2%, radii min 2nd radius but where used, mostly hidden.

The orange twin tracks between the storage yard and the reverse balloon, I'm thinking will be open, running on a falling incline in front of the through station. Simialrly, the blue branch could climb behind the station. Will look busy, I know, but lots of on-scene movement. The through station I plan to have operational functionality as a terminus station, with the through lines (top left corner) disappearing under a high level station building and forecourt. But that will also give me the option of watching trains circle. Departures from the terminus-cum-through station can circle a number of times, then enter the storage yard, and ultimately reverse direction; or branch DMUs /short goods can access the branch, and return to cross over the single slip on returning to the main line; or pause in the short spur opposite the storage yard.

This plan has probably got more visible running and better access to the storage roads than earlier deliberations. Gradients appear simpler to construct.

Any thoughts?

Ian