Brand new to Railway modelling, Bachman? DCC Digitrax DCS52 Zephyr Express and more?

[Bernard Lamb]

15 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

My final opinion: It's awful. Build it if you want to learn why it's awful but make sure you can re-use the track in a better plan afterwards.

 

If you're truly interested in the hobby then spend some time understanding the basics of how the real railway worked, or works, and study other layout plans (not the rubbish on freetrackplans).

 

The most sensible post in this thread,

The solid board will be far too heavy to move. It would also need some heavy duty casters with levelling facilities. You might be able to reach across the width now, but what about in ten years time?

A simple station to fiddle yard, on a much narrower board, along the lines of various layouts by Ian Futers for example, would provide a far better start as a learning curve. Forget DCC and just use a Gaugemester Combi. A short DMU and a 37 and you can try things to your heart's content. You can also play with cheap card building kits and find out if your interest lies in that side of the hobby. Have a couple of years of fun and then look at your longer term plans based on what you have discovered. 

Bernard

[Cliff M]

So this is what I am now happy with considering it's an 8 ft board.

I have simplified things and reduced the number of points by 4.

I have created a full inside oval track 3 which can be accessed from the outer track 1 going clockwise and the second circuit track 2 going anticlockwise.

I have kept the industry sidings as straight as possible for uncoupling.

The shunter can collect stock using points 15,16,17, and then reverse past points 12, and 13, and then push them into the industry sidings without being boxed in. It can also then collect stock from another industry siding pull it and then deposit it using 12, 15, 16, 17, again without being boxed in. Also, the shunter or train can join track 2 going anticlockwise as well. 

I will create an operating well in the center area.

I have made the station a bit wider but could do with some detailed guidance on track type to use here to improve it and get the dimensions right, please.

What do you now think?

 

[ITG]

That does look better, but….

1. if you moved the station loop turnouts outwards, and used other handed ones, the bend of the turnout would become part of the curve, giving (a) less of an ‘S’ wiggle and (b) a longer loop

2. what radii are those innermost curves? Many current locos do not like first radius, so I’d recommend avoiding them.

3.  How does a train get from outer to inner mainline? The only connection is via the diamond crossings at the bottom, and they give no access to that inner circuit (ie now the middle of three circuits).

4. The use of the diamonds is clumsy. There is no route for a train to access the innermost circuit or sidings, if it’s travelling on the middle circuit, other than by backing up via t/o 4. ( edit - now noticed turnout 8)

5, replacing the diamonds with slips (single/double?) may solve some of the above, but it’s still a rather untypical track layout at that bottom side.

Ian

Edited December 30, 2023 by ITG
Added comment

[Dungrange]

2 hours ago, Cliff M said:

 

 

Your platforms won't fit, as no space has been allowed for them.  I think the absolute minimum width for a single sided platform is 6', which means about 1" in 00.  For a two sided platform, the absolute minimum platform width would be twice that - ie 2" in 00.  In both cases, that assumes that there is no platform furniture.  If you want a building or waiting shelter, then the 6' distance is measured from the edge of the platform to  the nearest obstruction (ie a building, station seating, lighting columns, footbridge columns etc).  If your island platform is to have even a basic waiting shelter, then you're looking at needing a platform that is perhaps at least 3-4" wide.  That means that if you're using the set-track standard spacing of 67mm between track centrelines, then you need to more than double this in your station.  You're going to need your platform tracks to be at something closer to 150 mm centres to accommodate an island platform.

 

It's worth highlighting that in SCARM, the lines that are being drawn are the rails.  These are 16.5mm apart.  However, the average item of rolling stock is about 36.5mm wide, meaning that it overhangs the rails by about 10mm either side on the straight (and more on the curves).  You've drawn your platforms as though they come right to the rails, but you need to move the platform edges back to allow at least a 12mm gap between the rail and the platform edge and if you adjust what you've drawn, you'll see how unfeasibly narrow your platforms are.  Stations take up a lot of space.

 

The three tracks either end remind me too much of Thomas the Tank Engine.  The Island of Sodor seemed to have lots of stretches of track with three parallel tracks, but it's not common in the real world.

 

Looking at the operational potential, try moving your finger over your plan to think out all the moments that you'll want to make, in essence trying to draw up a timetable (or movement sequence).  That should help you identify issues, but also confirm whether there is enough to keep you interested.

 

If you decide to stick with something close to your current plan, then I'd probably change point 7 to being a curved point, to increase the distance between points 6 and 7.  I was happy enough running two coach trains as a child, but I'd be much less willing to make that compromise now (unless I was choosing to model a location where / are trains genuinely short).

 

I don't think you're there yet though.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Dungrange

[Cliff M]

Thanks, ITG, I have now included 4 more points to connect the outer line to the middle line at the sides.

I have not used any Radius 1 curves. If I move the station loop curves as you say I just get an unworkable angle. The inner radius curves are R 2.

Comments on the station now as I have reworked the whole of the outer and middle curves to center everything and get a bit more room for the station. Am I correct in thinking it only needs two platforms?

Dungrange, taking in your comments, which are very detailed and very helpful, what do you think of the station now?  The distance from the top edge of the board and the top edge of the top track is 4.5 ins. so any building could be 3.75 in footprint, is this ok?

The curved point change is a problem I have tried before but the only electro-frog curved point is the SLE-87 which is shown top right. It is too long and too light a curve to be useful. 

 

 

[Harlequin]

Hi Cliff,

The curved turnout should help a little bit - and it might be worth using it to squeeze every last inch of platform length you can.

Here are three turnouts coming off an R3 curve to create a platform loop:

The two brown ones are Peco Streamline Medium radius (best to avoid using Setrack in your main running lines if you can).

You can see that the naive solution (left) will give you the shortest platform length. It also looks wrong and introduces a wiggle (called a "reverse curve") that might cause derailments.

By changing the right hand turnout for a left hander (middle) you can see you'll get more platform length and both routes through the turnout are smoother.

Going one step further and using a Streamline curved left hand turnout (right, green) gains a little bit more platform length.

 

Remember that you can cut track in the real world to make it do what you want.

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Harlequin

[Cliff M]

Many thanks, Harlequin that's exactly the type of input I need.

Could you tell me the Peco model number of the track shown 'Going one step further and using a Streamline curved left-hand turnout (right, green) gains a little bit more platform length'.

Do you think I now have enough distance between the station rails as I have extended the board to 5 ft 6 in? (by 6 in)

I have now made some more improvements by adding point 23 so I was then able to make the shunter rails longer.

The SLE-86 and SLE-87 are the only curved electrofrog points listed in Scarm for Peco 100 shown top right and listed on the left. 

 

I am unable to upload a screenshot as I get the following error message. Do you know what might be happening?

 

Sorry, an unknown server error occurred when uploading this file.

(Error code: -200)

[Dungrange]

18 hours ago, Cliff M said:

Comments on the station now as I have reworked the whole of the outer and middle curves to center everything and get a bit more room for the station. Am I correct in thinking it only needs two platforms?

 

The number of platforms is up to you.  Below is a snip from Open Train Times https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/edinburgh#LINK_1, which shows the station at Dunbar on the East Coast Mainline.  The Up platform (for trains travelling south towards London) is on a loop allowing non-stopping trains a straighter run through the station.  For many years there was only one platform and the northbound trains had to cross over the up line to stop.  However, a new platform was constructed on the Down line (for trains travelling towards Edinburgh) a few years ago.  As you'll note, the layout looks very similar to your plan.

18 hours ago, Cliff M said:

what do you think of the station now?  The distance from the top edge of the board and the top edge of the top track is 4.5 ins. so any building could be 3.75 in footprint, is this ok?

 

That looks better.  Station buildings come in all sizes depending on how important the station is.  You don't really have enough space for a grand station building, but since your loop can only accommodate a short train (eg a 2-car DMU or a small tank locomotive and a couple of shorter coaches), then you're station building can be much simpler and can easily fit in that space.

 

18 hours ago, Cliff M said:

The curved point change is a problem I have tried before but the only electro-frog curved point is the SLE-87 which is shown top right. It is too long and too light a curve to be useful. 

 

Yes, I forgot you said at the start you wanted to use Electrofrog points and of course the set-track ones are all dead frog.

 

However, this does throw us back to the issue of the track centre distances that you are using. 

 

If using set-track (as you are at your corners), the radii need to be at 67mm track centres.  You'll automatically have this spacing if both curves start and end at the same point.  However, that's not what you have in your plan - the start and end of your curves have a stagger (the third radius curve starting before the second radius curve).

 

If you're using Streamline (as you seem to be for your point-work) then the spacing that this produces will be 50.8mm (2").  You therefore have two different track spacings - 50.8mm at your crossings, but this needs to increase to 67 mm going into your 'corners'.  You'll therefore need to use flexi-track to either make transitions in the centre to centre spacing (eg 50.8mm increasing to 67mm by creating a reverse curve), or cut small sections of track to insert between the two points that make up your crossovers to give you wider track centres on your straights.  In general, we try to avoid reverse curves, although the ones you'd be creating would be fairly gentle.  Inserting small straight lengths between the points that form your crossovers means that the crossovers will take up more space, which appears to be a problem with your point-work on the bottom side of the layout - there doesn't appear to be aby space to transition between set-track and streamline spacings.

 

One final comment is that you don't look to have a smooth join at point 4 between the point and the innermost circuit.

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Cliff M said:

Could you tell me the Peco model number of the track shown 'Going one step further and using a Streamline curved left-hand turnout (right, green) gains a little bit more platform length'.

 

It's an SL-E87, which you already mentioned.

 

[Torper]

It'll never be very prototypical, but I reckon you could have quite a lot of fun playing trains on Cliff's latest layout.

[Cliff M]

Thanks all. I've just been able to upload my latest design. As Torper says it's not very prototypical but I just wanted a layout with plenty of interest and things to do and have some fun with it, thanks Torper.

Harlequin I've included 3 tries at using the SLE-87 both on the outer and the inner tracks but as you can see I run out of room to make a sharp enough turn as the radius is only 19 degrees. Am I missing something here? 

Dungrange if you now look at the latest layout I think I have addressed all the curve issues you have correctly raised as I have centered them all on the outside track and the middle track as the spacing is now dictated by the new points numbers 5,6,9,10. these points connect the outside track to the middle track which was the only thing missing as pointed out by ITG.

Any final comments are most welcome.

Is the inability to upload with error 200 something that happens regularly? 

[DCB]

The layout is evolving into something  quite interesting to operate. Its very 1960s so getting 60 plans for small layouts by C.J.Freezer, and early edition 60s / 70s would have been a good start.

I say 1960s as the folk writing about "Layout of the Month" had about 6 locos and 12 coaches, plus maybe 20 trucks about the capacity of the proposed layout.
Cliff's iteration has a 2 track pinch point at turnout 1 right centre bottom.  Not great for DCC, unless you like head on crashes. OK for DC as one would provide an isolated section to stop locos over running.   DC and self isolating points gives collision protection just about automatically.

I habitually take a hacksaw to set track (Millennials would use a Dremel )  and shorten them to make non standard lengths. I also put 2nd radius curves round the outside of 3rd (or 3rd outside 4th)  when it helps geometry so a longer platform loop by cutting and mixing and matching track sections should be do able even if Anyrail can't cope.     You can't habitually store 2020 manufactured stock in a box and get it out run it and put it away again with out damaging it, I can't anyway,  so for anyone with a lot of stock a complete rethink with storage sidings would be  good idea, but with my tweaks there is room for 1 5 coach set a 3 and a 2, 20 wagons etc and everything can get from the centre storage area to and from up and down lines, 3 trains can circulate together, and should be fun. 

[Cliff M]

Thanks, DCB, if you could take a look at my latest layout just above your post and let me have your comments, please?+

I cannot seem to make the curved point work and I have posted some tries with it above too.

[Torper]

Actually, Cliff, the more I look at the latest incarnation of your layout the more I like it - it's so much better than the first one you produced.  Operationally it could be really good fun, and fun is something a lot of us miss from our layouts as we're far too busy worrying about prototype accuracy and so on.  We could carry on talking and making more "improvements" for ages and end up with nothing better than you've got now, so I suggest that you go ahead and build it.  If bits don't work it shouldn't be too difficult to carry out on-site alterations and if the whole thing's a disaster you can just dissassemble it and  start again, re-using your track and pointwork in a different design.  I'm sure we've all had to do that at some stage!

 

DCC or DC?  Your first instinct was correct - go for DCC - it'll make your wiring much easier for a start!  And it'll also open the Wonderful World of Sound to you  That of course may also open your wallet rather more than you might like!

Edited December 31, 2023 by Torper

[DCB]

7 hours ago, Cliff M said:

Thanks, DCB, if you could take a look at my latest layout just above your post and let me have your comments, please?+

I cannot seem to make the curved point work and I have posted some tries with it above too.

I would still keep the inner loop a complete loop ( blue plus deletion as a red x) instead of impinging on one of the main lines, if curved points don't work do you need the platform to be off a loop as the platform becomes rather short.    loops 1 and 2 are rather short, I  would keep them as straight sidings to get more stock on the layout

[ITG]

Do you not need to address the matter raised by @Dungrange regarding track spacing? As he says the spacing is dictated by the use of Streamline turnouts (not a bad thing imho) but set track curves are designed with a greater track spacing? The re are two potential issues with this.

1. the narrower track spacing on curves risks some stock with a significant overhang colliding if two such trains pass on the curve? In my experience, this isn’t black and white, both because it’s stock type dependant and because….

2. the actual track laying on the baseboard may not perfectly align with the Anyrail/Scarm virtual layout (note the comment about track alignment near turnout 4)

It is 1. Above which is the greater concern - you don’t want to get track laid only to find some stock won’t negotiate it. The obvious way to test this is to build a temporary twin track 90 degree test curve to see what does or doesn’t overhang too far.

Ian

[Harlequin]

14 hours ago, Cliff M said:

Thanks all. I've just been able to upload my latest design. As Torper says it's not very prototypical but I just wanted a layout with plenty of interest and things to do and have some fun with it, thanks Torper.

Harlequin I've included 3 tries at using the SLE-87 both on the outer and the inner tracks but as you can see I run out of room to make a sharp enough turn as the radius is only 19 degrees. Am I missing something here? 

Dungrange if you now look at the latest layout I think I have addressed all the curve issues you have correctly raised as I have centered them all on the outside track and the middle track as the spacing is now dictated by the new points numbers 5,6,9,10. these points connect the outside track to the middle track which was the only thing missing as pointed out by ITG.

Any final comments are most welcome.

Is the inability to upload with error 200 something that happens regularly? 

 

The Error 200 thing was probably just a glitch with RMweb - I saw a few other people having different problems around the same time.

 

To use the curved turnout you have to make the inner track have the radius of the curved turnout minus your spacing so that it remains parallel. That does mean that both tracks curvature is opening up but that's not bad thing because it helps transition from straight to the very tight R2 and R3 curves. Then one more thing: because the radii have become greater the whole corner curve probably needs to move down but that should be fine because there's a bit of room around the 5/6 and 9/10 crossovers and they could both be smoother by having one end in the corner curves.

 

Note what folks are saying about track spacing: You need to use setrack spacing (67mm) in the corners to avoid bogie vehicles crashing into each other because of the outswing at the ends and the overhang in the middle. Setrack radii R2 and R3 are naturally 67mm apart. But that spacing looks a bit silly on the straights and won't help with your Streamline crossovers because Streamline's natural spacing is 51mm (2in). So you either have to use Setrack spacing everywhere or transition between the spacings as you approach and leave the corners.

 

[RobinofLoxley]

The spacing trumps everything. It doesnt work. Trying to address issues inside the loops while pretending the spacing problem isn't there, is not helpful.

[Dungrange]

18 hours ago, Cliff M said:

I have centered them all on the outside track and the middle track as the spacing is now dictated by the new points numbers 5,6,9,10. these points connect the outside track to the middle track

 

Unfortunately, that’s the problem – your spacing needs to be determined by the set-track curves rather than the points.

 

Peco produce two track ranges: Set-track and Streamline.  Set-track is primarily aimed at the ‘train set’ market (principally for those who don’t care too much about prototypical authenticity and just want to run trains for fun), whilst Streamline is aimed at those attempting to model something a little closer to the prototype (ie closer to prototype track spacing AND closer to prototype curves).

 

If you stick to one or other track range, then you don’t need to worry about track centres too much, because the points automatically take care of the spacing for you.  However, in your case, you’re trying to mix the two track systems and therefore your track centres either need to transition between 51mm at the Streamline point-work and 67mm on the Set-track corners (so the track centres are constantly varying in your straight sections), or you need to adjust your Streamline crossings so that you are using 67mm centres throughout.

 

The reason is that when an item of rolling stock goes into a tight curve, the centre of a coach on your outer track will hang into the space between the two tracks.  Similarly, the front end of a locomotive on your inner track will swing out into the same space between the tracks.  If you have 67mm track centres, then you’ll be fine (even with 2nd radius curves).  However, if you adopt a lesser distance between the tracks (which is what you are doing by working to the 51mm centres produced by your streamline points 5, 6, 9 and 10) then if you run two trains at the same time, there is a high risk of a collision.  However, that risk is stock specific (as well as being related to the radius of the curve).  If you were to restrict your purchases to say a Class 08 shunter and short four-wheel wagons, then you may be okay with your plan as shown.  However, if you were to run say Mark 3 coaches (the type used in the High Speed Train (HST) on the outside track and a 4-6-2 Pacific locomotive like Flying Scotsman on your inner track, then these will collide.  You would therefore only be able to run one train at a time – either your outside circuit or your inner circuit, but not both simultaneously.

 

You might be able to find a track spacing of less than 67mm that will work with the stock you plan to run, but you’ll need to find that by trial and error.  In essence, buy a couple of second radius curves and the biggest stock you are likely to want to run and then make the appropriate measurements.  For measuring centre overhang, you’re looking for stock with the greatest distance between the bogie pivots and for a locomotive, you’re looking for the greatest distance between the front of the locomotive and either the front driving wheels of a steam locomotive or the bogie pivot of a diesel locomotive. 

 

You’ll then need to make up a jig to assist you when you’re laying track to your bespoke centres or buy something like the adjustable tool made by Proses - https://houseofhobbies.co.uk/product/proses-hooo-scale-adjustable-parallel-track-tool-20548?gclid=CjwKCAiA4smsBhAEEiwAO6DEjf3_b6T0GGCf7eBDmBlJk8UUVhyJq6SXVIf34i7k7QB05Mg_vi1nZBoCguQQAvD_BwE

 

If you stick with 51mm and 67mm, then Peco already sell a much cheaper alternative - https://peco-uk.com/products/6ft-way-gauge?variant=7435677499426

 

If your second and third radius curves were 67 mm apart (as they should be), then both curves would start and finish at the same location.(ie they would line up, just like they do at the mid point on your curve).  It's the fact that they don't that highlights you have a problem.

[Dungrange]

18 hours ago, Cliff M said:

 

 

 

Don't place your SL-E87 as close to point 9 - it's probably easier to be closer to point 7 (which it replaces).

 

Let's start by saying that Point 9 is in the correct place.  The next piece of track that you want to position is the double second radius curve (45 Degrees), which connects at the toe end of point 9.  The next piece of track that you want to position after that is the double third radius curve (45 Degrees) that should be parallel to the second radius curve and 67 mm from it.

 

Once you have that, you can extend both curves using the 2nd/3rd radius 22.5 Degree curves, which will remain 67 mm apart.  At that point you can add a SL-E87 into your outer curve.  The inner curve of the SL-E87 has a radius of 30" (762 mm), so you're going to have to use flexitrack to lay a curve of approximately 695 mm radius (ie 762 -67) in your inner circuit so that the two tracks remain parallel, although in practise you could use this piece to transition to whatever track centres you want to use through your station, so the 695 mm isn't going to be critical.  For the outer exit track on the SL-E87, which will form your loop, you're probably looking at using a short section of second radius (ie you are cutting a piece of set-track) or just using flexi-track to get to whatever track centres you adopt through the station.  I'd be aiming for 51 mm centres through the straight section so that your station takes up as little space as possible.  You could go as low as 45 mm (the scaled prototype dimension) since your station is dead straight, but this would require quite a bit of trial and error with your transitions at either end and I think sticking with about 51 mm would be much easier.

[Cliff M]

Thanks again all.

DCB, if I remove point no. 1 as you suggest then the middle track has no access to the inner shunting system for a train going anticlockwise ie driving on the left. Also loops 1 and 2 are just to recover the shunter as I envisage the straights to be just where rolling stock wagons will be deposited. 

I think I have now solved the spacing problem by adding a small straight ST 203 between points 5,6 and 9,10.  this gives the extra width needed on all turns as you have pointed out. The new center-to-center smallest measurement at the start of the turns is now 2.35 in. Please let me know if I'm wrong or if I need even more space.

I have also discovered the fairly new point SLU-76 and 77 which are Unifrog so I can connect them as an Electrofrog. They give a tighter radius of 33.75 degrees and so I have placed them at either end of the new longer station.

I also have extended the board by another 2 in which gives me a distance of 5.5 in from the top edge of the board to the edge of the outer track. 

Have I placed the station platforms in the correct spaces?  Do you think this station would now work with buildings etc with the space it now has?

 

Edited January 1 by Cliff M
my mistake

[chuffinghell]

Much better, have you given any thoughts about scenery? As this may have an effect on your track plan.
 

Its difficult to tell from a track plan but do you have enough room from the edge of the board to the track

[Cliff M]

Just to add, the distance between tracks at the center of all outer curves is now 2.25 in.

[Cliff M]

The edge of the board at the sides is 1.5 in but I can increase the board by 1 to 2 in if needed width ways.

[ITG]

53 minutes ago, Cliff M said:

The edge of the board at the sides is 1.5 in but I can increase the board by 1 to 2 in if needed width ways.

Best to do that as a safety precaution to lessen risk of trains falling off the board.