RMweb Gold McC Posted January 11, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2012 Hi all! I have an attice space, as drawing, with 22 feet by 13 feet in a 'dogbone' type arrangement (with access). I've come up with the following plan, based on a high level terminus adjoining a dogbone contrinuous run with the includes running down the 13 feet edges at left and right. The plan is pretty much entirely 'freelance' but will run Irish outline and BR Blue (taking it in turns ) The terminus sits in the middle, with a small motive depot to the left at high level, and coach sidings to the right. Lower left left is a Preserved railway / through station and bottom left is a small cement facility. Top right on lower level is a goods yard / small intermodal yard. Anyone see any glaring errors? It runs to 475 feet of track (which will be Peco code 100), 49 points, 3 single slips and will be DCC run with dcc points.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 11, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 11, 2012 There are several facing points / slips that seem unlikely (not impossible though). Why do this in code 100? You describe yourself as a newbie so have you built a layout before? I ask as this seems like a complex project that could take a long time to complete. Even though you are going down the DCC route some of the wiring will be interesting. I would consider seeing how you can break this down into manageable sections. i.e. a continuos run. the terminus etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 11, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2012 I've built two small layouts before, largest was a 10'x4' but I consider this my first 'real' one if that makes sense I've an amount of points in 100, otherwise no pressing reason - would you recommend finescale / 83? I was working on the basis of point and single slip for branclines to give access to the 'feature' branches like goods and cement yards... I do plan breaking it down into small pieces, with the terminus the last thing to build.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 11, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 11, 2012 I was going to suggest code 75. It always looks better in my eyes than code 100, but as a 2mm modeller I can't really help on the differences between them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 11, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2012 I have the double crossover and maybe half a dozen each of the medium right and left points, and a handful of long ones, (probably 150-200 pounds worth) so I'm hoping a good trackpainting and weathered / ballasting will take the weight of the track down on 100? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sse Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 A very ambitious plan! I'd definitely suggest that you split up so you can do a small part first and get some trains running while you work on other bits (I find the noise relaxing). The "triangle" into your terminus might be challenging to wire up as the polarity of the rails will change, would be beyond my capabilities anyway. If it was me I would put the terminus at one side with a nice gentle curved approach into it, I'd also try to add a few gentle curves to the main running lines. Mind you it would also be in N!!! All the best with it! SSE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 11, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2012 Thanks SSE! My plan is to build all the lower level baseboards and get the basic track loop in place, so I can at least run trains while I built out the sections The logic of the terminus in the middle is that it provides a scenic break across the middle of the top 'stretch' and allows easy access from both sides. The triangle layout means I can drive trains in and out of all platforms in both directions, as well as moves from the motive depot and carriage sidings remaining off the mainline... This should let me release locos and generally shunt coaching stock about the terminus while the main loops are busy and making noise Agree on the gentle curves, the worse ones will be obscured by breaks, tunnels, hills, etc, and the lower level radii are much more forgiving really appreciate the feedback! I reckon I'll have it finished in maybe 3 years (he hopes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sse Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Hi McC I'm not sure you'll be able to run trains in/out of the terminus without some fairly complex wiring and section breaks. If you say that your +ve rail is on the inside on the way in then the same rail is on the outside on the way out! You'd have to switch the two "arcs" separately, stopping the trains, and you won't be able to run multiple units that have pickups that are longer than the section break. SSE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 11, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2012 Am I correct in assuming that I can run either left or right curves at once though? As ling as only side of the triangle to terminus end is open at any one time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I agree with the comments thus far about the general difficulty of building it, and I also think the double triangle will be electrically mind-boggling even with DCC. I'm not even sure you could do it with polarity reversers, you might have to construct an interlocking which as well as controlling the signals and points also sets the correct polarity on each track section. This triangle would be a lot easier, electrically and probably operationally too, if at least one side was longer than the longest train. Perhaps you could extend it at the top right hand corner to make a four-track section along the right hand part of the top edge of the layout next to the carriage sidings? I think a polarity reverser on each of the two tracks going into the terminus here would then sort everything out, although you'd still need to ensure correct frog polarity for all those diamonds. Consider also making the triangle itself larger as the radius is very tight at present, though this would make the lifting (?) section more complicated. The situation of the terminus reminds me of Glasgow St Enoch. Perhaps a little research into this station, or some other prototype that inspires you, would allow you to include some interesting quirks into what is currently a rather "bog standard" terminus layout? I wonder if you need some hidden sidings? It could be very tedious removing all the British stock to replace with Irish or vice versa. You may be able to get some long ones in underneath the high level tracks at the very top of the plan, and this would be somewhere to use up your Code 100! But think about how you get access to these and how you can stop trains in the right positions when driving them in. In fact this area and the bottom left hand corner are generally looking quite difficult to reach, as I think they are over 3 feet from the nearest operating well. Unless your layout is very low or you have very long arms it will be difficult to clean track and sort out derailments without leaning well over the layout and knocking stuff over on the front edge. You can perhaps sort this out at the bottom left by re-routing the main lines and creating another operating well, but at the top you may have to narrow the board and lose some of your planned "features". Perhaps instead you could put a high level goods yard on a peninsula going downwards parallel to and to the right of the terminus? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 12, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2012 Hi Edwin, Many thanks for your feedback! The triangle is the main point of concern at the moment from a wiring point of view - I'm even looking at dcc with insulfrog to see if I can really simplify it... I've been looking at http://www.wiringfordcc.com/track_2.htm#a43 and from what I've read, I can do it as long as the max powered loco/multiple unit doesnt exceed the gap between the two sets of facing points. (which is 3' at its narrowest)... Otherwise, I can install a reversing module and do the following: Thanks for the pointer - and I agree fully on the 'boringness' of the terminus... Not a bad idea on the storage tracks..... I plan on using removable retaining walls, etc, along that section, so could hide a siding or two behind the wall methinks.... On the distances, the bottom left hand corner is 2'8" at the furthest point, top left is 3' to the back of the track, and is the furthest reach. The layout is going into the loft, so will be 2'6" off the ground and my arms are 2 and a half feet long (yes, I measured ) so am hoping it's managable (also, the back tracks will be on the rise, so higher up that the tracks in the foreground, hopefully making reaching over simpler. Rerouting on the bottom left and adding another well is actually a great idea! I'll have a further play about methinks - really appreciate the feedback and so glad I asked here before ploughing into boards!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 12, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2012 St. Enoch looks fascinating - do you know if anyone has done a model of it before? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I don't see the triangle as being a serious issue. These things can be worked out. At leaste the arms of the triagles are not all connected (the terminus does not loop back). My biggest concern is the mention of "medium" radius points - Big layouts especially with large scenic areas (looks like all of it in this case) should have sweeping curves. I assume the grey area is out of bounds - as a personal view I would have separated upper and lower levels. This is going to be expensive to build and be a lifetime project so if you are quibbling over the odd £200 worth of reused track at this stage - perhaps it is not affordable? This will require considerable other costs in control equipment, scenics and of course stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 My concern is what Kenton brought up. Have you decided to build a "model railway" or a giant "train set"? To me it looks too "square", with "rounded corners" missing the sweeping curves, as Kenton suggests. Unless you are getting plenty of help I believe you are seriously underestimating the completion factor at "Three Years"!! Besides I don't see the build as something to hurry through anyway - it's the main part of the "modelling experience", Just my opinion, I get bored very quickly with trains just going round and round, but that may be just me! Be sure at this early stage that you know what you really want. Best, Pete. PS Just wanted to add that I think you are making a huge mistake in having the layout just 2'6" high from the "ground". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony_S Posted January 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2012 The triangle is the main point of concern at the moment from a wiring point of view - I'm even looking at dcc with insulfrog to see if I can really simplify it... Insulfrog won't simplify it, it will add problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 12, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2012 Thanks guys, yes the grey block is the access from downstairs so I can't cut through there. Kenton - I was using mainly medium peco points to condense things - is this a mistake (even in the station?) The mainly branches, etc, are all large peco Perte - you are right, I fear I've slipped into the 'trying to fit everything I ever wanted' into the design, resulting in cramping and 'train set' feel The height from the ground is dictated mainly by the slope of the roof in the loft. At the apex, the clearance is 6'4" and slopes down to meet the side walls at top and bottom of the plan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 12, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12, 2012 You've said that you have tried to fit in everything that you ever wanted, there is nothing wrong with that, but the way you have done it might be part of what has caused you the problems fitting it all in and loosing the trainset look. Looking back at the plan each item appears to be separate. Combining some features (Why not have the cement terminal and goods yard in the same place?) will give the layout more of a whole feel. Currently it's a little bitty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 12, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2012 Hmm, thanks Kris, you are dead right. It feels like small layouts with set-track lines between them.... I'll have a play about with the arrangement I think... Really appreciate it guys - saving me virtually millions of hours here in mistaken building! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 12, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2012 Insulfrog won't simplify it, it will add problems. Would you recommend electro from the start? I understand this will be a long term venture, I guess I'm being stupid trying to save a few pounds on points I'll recycle the code-100 insulfrog stuff into a new roundy for the kids Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Personally I would go back to the drawing board - as depressing that might be. A layout of this size needs hours and hours of planning and should be designed with care. I have had big disasters in the past with big picture layouts and now only do micros or short end to end layouts. Even they are a big problem with the time required to make any impact on them. I would strongly suggest going for a particular prototype - there is nothing quite as real as working from the prototype even if it is compressed. Get some basic "must haves" in to satisfy that modeling urge - eg a loco depot, a factory/industry, other scenics such as a river crossing or canal ... The practical decisions on track should be Peco 75 electrofrog or build your own and that decision relies on a decision on track gauge. Leave insulfrog behind you. I think my starting point here would be the terminus as it is the centre of everything. Get that right and even if you then get bored all you would require is a comprehensive fiddle yard and you have a layout which could occupy you for years and provide entertainment for a long time. I would move the location of the terminus to a corner and loose the triangle. It is not that they are impossible to wire up - just difficult - and use a loop to give the out and back. The other important thing about keeping it small - a part of an overall bigger scheme - is that you can soon see progress and get a sense of achievement. It also means that you have even longer to think through the rest of the space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 12, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2012 Hi Kenton, Really appreciate the advice! So you suggest a reverse loop so trains can exit the terminus, complete the loop and return? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 12, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2012 This was an earlier draft, which concentrated on pretty much everything together, Terminus in top left, goods, depot, fueling, coach sidings all facing, with the throat curving out to meet the mainline and then a big dogbone loop which dropped under the terminus board at the top of the room again.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold McC Posted January 12, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 12, 2012 This design was actually a little more track, more points, but allowed me 10 feet for platforms and excellent storage without feeling cramped, and also a decent length of fiddle.... I could open the loop at the bottom left and instead cross the space with the track, rather than force it back along the left edge... this would give me more room for the station or industry in that corner, and allow me to do a sweeping curve (maybe a stereotypical viaduct in time) between the bottom left and back to the fiddle.... ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 You mentioned the legs of the triangle being longer than your maximum powered set. However there is also a risk that a metal wheel on the unpowered part of the train can short across the insulated joiners at the same time as the powered part is going over the ones at the other end of the section. This will result in intermittent short circuits, though you may be able to get round it by introducing a very short dead section or even building the gap up to rail top with insulating material. Even if you do this you could will still have problems with lighted coaches, as these generally take power from several wheels each side so they are linked together electrically. And anything with a motor each end could also be difficult. The main problem with your later plan is that trains leave the terminus and are then forever going clockwise round the main circuit with no easy way to turn them round and send them back. You probably need a return loop somewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 12, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12, 2012 The earlier draft of your layout has a lot of potential especially the main station and yard area. With a little extra work on the main loops this could give you what you want. Adding in a reverse loop would solve the clockwise problem identified by Edwin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.