HR_Line

2 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Assuming those arrows are the direction of travel, you've designed for right hand running. Which is probably no problem if you're 8, nor if you're modeling German or American railways.

 

You're too far gone to revise it for trailing access to sidings with left hand running, though, so it's probably as good as you're going to get.

Yes, that's correct. It's not a major issue for us and is a worthwhile sacrifice I think.

We have deliberated, cogitated and digested, and I think I've found a layout that suits our needs pretty well. Hopefully it strikes a good balance between having plenty of interest to the driver/signalman without cramming so much in that there is no room for scenery or industry.

I've made the points off the loops trailing and will use the loop as the headshunt.

I'm still undecided about stations; there could be a double sided platform inside the blue loop although it would be obscured by the double girder bridge, and I could also space the fan of sidings differently to create a terminus.

Plan and pics attached for your perusal.

17 hours ago, Chimer said:

I think you perhaps need to dwell a pause and sort out what you really want to include, what's desirable, and what can be left out, given the various stuff that's been thrown at you in the last couple of days.  Perhaps most importantly, assuming it is one of your "musts", visualise what has to be done to shunt a freight train using a fan of sidings, with some wagons being left in the sidings and others beinbg picked up and taken forward.  And think of the difference in operations depending on whether the loco pulls the train into the sidings from the main line (facing point) or reverses to push it in (trailing point).

 

 

Wise words Chris. I'm going to take a step back for a day or two and figure out what we really want from the layout. As you suggest, it is easy to get mired in the possibilities and forget that often less is more.

Thanks again particularly to you and Keith for your advice; I've learnt a lot over the last two pages and whatever we end up with your help will have been invaluable.

I'll report back soon.

Epoxy would work but you'd probably need to drill a pilot hole into it otherwise it could split.

If the item is big enough you could retap the resin, insert a helicoil and screw into that.

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi Chris - you could probably add the baseboard joints to help here?  From the pictures there are four sections across the ‘top’ with the fifth being the extension bottom right.  The boards don’t look uniform size, but looks like @HR_Line has wisely placed the joins to minimise curves across joints (quite a feat with this plan): all looks very well built.

 

(Yes, of course I want one...)

You are spot on with regards the joins Keith. There are 5 sections, all of different sizes. They can be seen more clearly on the pic below which was taken before I painted. The white patches that follow the joins are two-part filler that was used to get the levels spot on before the track was laid.

The baseboards are joined with DCC Concepts baseboard dowels (3 per join) and the track is soldered onto brass screws although the bridges will be 'dropped in', as will one piece of track due to the angle across the join. So far so good. 

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

As soon as I posted I thought I could see an improvement ....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks again Chris - certainly food for thought.

I had envisaged the turntable in area B as that will be mountains and I thought it would be fun to have some sheds built into the mountainside. It would also allow two tracks to use the turntable although I don't know if that would be of much benefit.

Using area C for sidings would help with the access but I see the issue would be where to put the headshunt. I could swap the point on the green loop that feeds the two southern sidings around (see pic) but that would presumably affect the mainline direction? It would also require a 90 degree crossing over the track going to the turntable from the other direction and it looks like a dogs dinner but might that be the only way to provide a fan of sidings to area C?

In my head had imagined two users, each with control of an area (A or C), with B (the turntable) being switchable to both. Whether this works electrically or functionally I know not!

26 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Noting you are going to be using DC and Cab Control, wiring the main lines in opposite directions, so a train can traverse the whole system without fiddling about electrically, is fundamental to successful operation.  This would mean you could switch all sections to the same controller and drive a single train everywhere.  Obviously in operation there will be more than one train (I reckon there could be 6 - one circulating on green, one circulating on blue, one in a green loop, one in a blue loop and one waiting on each gold link line) but they are all effectively going the same way, which (provided that way is clockwise round the green bend at the left hand side) means they will always "look right" to British eyes when they pass one another.

 

If they are going that way, all the turnouts to the 3 areas A, B and C are facing as currently laid.  Anathema to some, but probably not critical for this sort of layout.  But there is a practical issue if an area is to be used as goods yard - if the access was trailing, the yard could be shunted directly from the main line, whereas if its facing, the train has to pull into the yard clear of the main into what becomes a headshunt, with the sidings kicking back.  This takes up quite a bit more space, but could probably be done using areas B and C together.  Area A could then be for engine stabling, where facing access is not a problem operationally. 

 

I'll try a few things in XTrackCad later on today and see what I can come up with .....

 

Cheers, Chris 

Thanks again Chris. I have loosely laid some track and the turntable in the sort of configurations I had in mind, but as you will have gathered I am not well versed in the usability of various track configurations.

I will definitely be taking the advice offered and wiring the tracks in different directions. The droppers are in place but I can use some tape to change the colours as necessary.

On 19/02/2021 at 17:06, Keith Addenbrooke said:

If I remember correctly, the plan dates for the days when “loop-to-loop” plans for US table top layouts were seen as something to aspire to.  This plan simulates that but (as you’d expect from John Armstrong) plays a few tricks on us: 
 

 If I unpack the plan (without the extra L extension) and mark the main lines for right-hand US running it looks like this:

 

Across the viaduct and around the end curves, correct-handed double track running looks to be what is happening.  The two orange cutoffs (which have already been built as I understand it) complement this by allowing trains to switch tracks without any ‘wrong-line running’ - trains starting on the red line take cut-off E and trains starting on the blue line use cutoff D.

 

I think conventional crossovers between the running lines would introduce ‘wrong line’ running.

 

If I unpack the schematic, I think it looks like this:

 

 

What this reveals is that Station A is the principal station - it appears on both the blue route and the longer route that uses the orange cutoffs.  In terms of developing the layout, this may help determine what kind of sidings may be better at A (the principal ones) compared to B and C (as the ‘red’ station is a secondary station that can be bypassed).

 

From memory, the original John Armstrong plan did just that - the ‘blue’ station was the main station - the red line did not have a passing loop at this point and was more of a bypass line.

 

Checking this reveals the error in my first post:

 

You are quite right - my mistake, there is no reversing loop in my drawing.  I’ll correct my initial response to avoid confusion (It was Linn Westcott’s “HO Railroad that Grows” that had a reversing loop, sorry).

I hadn't fully appreciated that the original design had avoided 'wrong-line' running in this way - thank you for the explanantion and drawings. It's a shame that area A is quite small compared to B/C but there we are.

Thanks everybody for your inputs - very useful.

On 19/02/2021 at 20:30, Flying Pig said:

 

Because of the reversing crossovers, the red and blue circuits will need to be wired with "forward" in opposite directions.  This will allow running between them without changing the polarity of the supply.  Again, that isn't how you would wire a layout with plain crossovers.

Ah. I hadn't appreciated this and have installed the droppers assuming both mainlines would run in the same direction. I have updated the paper plan to show how I've installed them (the red wire is on the right hand rail and the black is on the left hand rail when facing in the direction of the arrows). I had the swap in polarity being provided by cuts in the orange tracks as shown. I can probably live with half the black droppers being +'ve but it's not ideal is it!

On 19/02/2021 at 20:32, Chimer said:

To scale, I think it might look a bit like this .... using Peco set-track radii (2-4) with a bit of fudging .....

 

Wow, that's amazing, thank you! I've actually mixed a few Streamline points and some flexible track in with the setrack and there was a lot of cutting to make it all fit together but you've interpreted the layout perfectly. The pic attached shows where we are today with the layout. Track is pinned and droppers installed but still working on where the electrical blocks should be and reading up on cab control. I had thought a vague understanding of electrics gained from working on building sites with domestic electricians might have been enough to muddle through, but this is another world altogether*.

I'm now leaning towards getting the areas A, B and C completed rather than trialing different options. This would allow me to get all the wiring done (I'm going to motorise points and the turntable, and would people also recommend some sort of track detector to avoid collisions?) in one go and the scenic work to begin.

On 19/02/2021 at 23:25, Chimer said:

The accesses to A, B and C (oops, I missed one!) could all be shifted across the various loops to become trailing but I understand the track is laid ......

Would trailing points be preferable? It's not something I'd considered tbh.

42 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Can you not put in a standard crossover rather than the orange dashed lines? Would seem much simpler. The gradients involved with them look likely to be complicated.

 

The basic red and blue looks ideal for an 8yo. I'd have loved it at that age (probably until I was about 11 - bear that kind of thing in mind when procrastinating about actually getting the thing built...).

The gradients are ok. I've tested the track as it is and all our stock runs without difficulty.

When you say a standard crossover do you mean a much shorter one? It would have been simpler I suppose but I think the longer meandering ones add a bit of interest, including a nice raised section that goes over a long bridge.

The scarm pic attached shows the layout in relief (obviously mine is a bit longer due to the additional leg but you get the idea).

43 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

With that in mind, my suggestion would be to keep your options open - finish getting the two loops working (with DC you’ll need reverse loop wiring for this plan, but I’ll guess you’re on top of that already).  You can hold two or three trains on the layout as it is, so what I’d then do is lay some temporary Setrack sidings in areas A to C (including the turntable) so you can see what catches the imagination - and what doesn’t.

 

Good idea, thanks Keith. On the wiring I am not on top of it by any means! Are you sure I'd need reverse loop wiring though - both mainlines run continuously (they are effectively figure 8's)?

Hello to all.

I’m looking for some advice regarding the OO gauge layout I’m currently building. I am aware that the style will not be to everybody’s taste and has little of the ‘real world’ about it, but the main user is 8 years old and, after long discussions and debate we have decided that this is well suited to his requirements.

Keen-eyed readers will note a striking similarity between the layout and the famed Granite, Gorge & Northern created by John Armstrong for Atlas. I have added a ‘leg’ to make it ‘L’ shaped, included a passing loop for both mainlines and reduced the number of crossings from two to one but otherwise it is pretty close to the original in design and scale. Max gradient is 3% which will be ok with our stock and curves are minimum 2nd radius. It splits into 5 sections for moving/storage.

The next step is to decide on what goes into the three zones marked A, B and C on the rather rudimentary Plan that I attach (I only have a paper version I’m afraid). The red and blue are the mainlines and the dashed orange are the auxiliary lines to allow moving from one mainline to the other.

We have a turntable which I am inclined to put in area B (there is walk around space that allows some access to that corner), with perhaps an archetypal terminus in area C for one user and something similar or an inglenook set up in A fort the other user. I think a Minories or Ashburton would be a step too far but happy to entertain all possibilities at this stage. It would be good if area C had direct access to the turntable too.

What do you think? As I said it’s mainly going to be used by my son who enjoys watching the trains go round and round, but I’m thinking that there should also be features that engage other users and will keep him interested as he gets older, whilst not being too cluttered with track (we’re hoping the hobby will extend to building scenery, buildings, electrics, etc).

The baseboards have been made and the track has been laid as per the plan shown (ie: red, blue and orange track is in situ as are droppers to each section of track) so I’d be grateful if your suggestions could bear that in mind; I’m not minded to start again on a completely different layout at this stage! There is also a river running between the red and blue passing loops that isn't shown on the attached plan.

Operation will be DC (cab control) and most of the track and points we have are Peco Setrack - again, I know there are alternatives that some favour but they are what we have and given the available space seem a practicable choice.

Any advice will be much appreciated.

Rob.