New layout comments please

[Dukedog.]

Hi all, still in the planning stages (train room nearly ready} any comments on this one please will be DCC i know bottom right is a bit of a strech.  It is over two levels.

 

sorry it is a pdf 

 

Thanks

layout one.pdf

Edited July 3 by Dukedog.
typo

[ntpntpntp]

Obvious first observation is you have a couple of reverse loops / wye formation combinations so make sure you're familiar with using DCC reverse loop modules 🙂

Edited July 3 by ntpntpntp

[ModelerXYZ]

2 reverse loops and 2 triangles intersecting each other as part of the reverse loops. If you manage it, its an interesting problem as to where your Insulated Rail Joiners (IRJs) go. XYZ

[What About The Bee]

Make the double slip fixed polarity.

The four lines that lead into it must all be isolated on both ends.  The four lines that lead into it are supplied by auto-reversers.

Sorted 

Bee

 

[What About The Bee]

Dukedog

I can see two apparent crossovers on the left side, top and bottom corners of your plan.  There is no denotation of a diamond crossing in either spot.

I suspect these tracks are actually on different levels.  

Can you split out the levels for examination?

Bee

 

[Dukedog.]

OK so the outer 2 lines on the right are a second level where they then run round to the left bottom level.pdfbottom level.pdflayout top level.pdf

 some of the point setups are just overlaid while I play around 

Edited July 4 by Dukedog.

[What About The Bee]

Hi Dukedog

Thank you for separating out the layers.  It helps me to understand what is presented.

What follows is merely an opinion from the cheap seats, the ones all the way in the back.  Feel free to utterly disregard anything I offer. This is just what I observe.

The top and bottom layers have no interchange.  Thats okay, of course.  It is your layout.  Yet the top layer offers little more beyond that which the bottom layer already provides.  When we ignore the interior track work, both are two large loops.  If you want to watch trains go by, set the point work to non-diverging on the bottom layer and let them run. 

All of the interactive play is in the bottom layer.  The lazy 8 track, with two back to back Y points (why not double slip?) offers the ability to send the trains here and there.  I like that a lot.  It offers nice potential.  Scheduling and decision making in the offing.

Placing the double cross-over right within the context of the wye offers an interesting interchange.  As you have pointed out yourself, the tracks don't actually join there, the points are over layed in software.  Before committing to actual track, I'd make sure that it really does connect properly.  If you run into difficulty, then move the double cross over elsewhere on the loop.  It is a feature all on its own and provides its own interactive nature.  Don't lose it, perhaps move it.

The three track yard is an industry.  You need a second yard somewhere else,  providing your freight trains something to do.  They pick up in yard A and move it to yard B.  You set the route and perform the delivery.  Interacting with the layout instead of watching trains go by.  Along those lines, you have plenty of room for two passenger terminals, to increase the interaction. 

Some things I am not overjoyed with (the part you get to freely ignore).

1)No storage / fiddle yard?  You must intend on keeping extra rolling stock and locomotives off layout, perhaps in a cabinet.  Make sure that the room layout includes that cabinet space and reasonable (for you) access to the cabinet.

2) The top layer obstructs the view of the interactive bottom layer.  If it were me, and it decidedly is not, I would entirely skip the top layer.  Needless extra work for little extra play.  If you really want two layers, connect via inclines and make sure you can still see the bottom layer to interact with it.  

3) Derailments happen. Derailments in the center of the layout are going to be reasonably hard to reach. Count on the derailment to occur in the least accessible portion. May I ask the scale?  N, TT, OO or O?  What size is the square on your grid? 

4) I assumed OO and that the grid squares are 50mm.  A hilariously bad idea.  But in doing so, realized that some of the curves appear below R2 or 438 mm.  Most kit is targeted at a radius of 438 mm.  If you intend longer stock , you need to relax those curves, or run small locomotives

5) the track separation between tracks appears less than recommended.  Long stock will over hang and collide with long stock on the other track in those curves.

6) Once you have a sense of the style and interaction within the layout, make sure that all the pieces connect without violation, within the software. Remember the 6 P's of Engineering: Prior planning prevents poor performance.   [joke: there are only 5, proving the point]

That's entirely too much.  I will stop now. 

Bee

Edited July 4 by What About The Bee
Hopefully, you understand that this is not to discourage you, but rather, food for thought. For more interaction, more play.

[Dukedog.]

Thanks Bee

1 hour ago, What About The Bee said:

1)No storage / fiddle yard?  You must intend on keeping extra rolling stock and locomotives off layout, perhaps in a cabinet.  Make sure that the room layout includes that cabinet space and reasonable (for you) access to the cabinet.

Was thinking at a later date to put a helex in to go to a lower level storge yard.

 

1 hour ago, What About The Bee said:

 

2) The top layer obstructs the view of the interactive bottom layer.  If it were me, and it decidedly is not, I would entirely skip the top layer.  Needless extra work for little extra play.  If you really want two layers, connect via inclines and make sure you can still see the bottom layer to interact with it.

this was a option was thinking if i could get it in to make it hogwarts themed 

1 hour ago, What About The Bee said:

3) Derailments happen. Derailments in the center of the layout are going to be reasonably hard to reach. Count on the derailment to occur in the least accessible portion. May I ask the scale?  N, TT, OO or O?  What size is the square on your grid? 

oo gauge and the squares are 67mm

There are 6p`s but wont put them on here.

 

 

1 hour ago, What About The Bee said:

4) I assumed OO and that the grid squares are 50mm.  A hilariously bad idea.  But in doing so, realized that some of the curves appear below R2 or 438 mm.  Most kit is targeted at a radius of 438 mm.  If you intend longer stock , you need to relax those curves, or run small locomotives

 

the set curves should be smallest 438 R2 bur some of the other flex curvers may not be

Again thank you for the comments  and will all be looked at in detail when the main board goes down 

 

[RB51]

3 minutes ago, Dukedog. said:

There are 6p`s but wont put them on here.

Grateful reaction not available regrettably. R-

[ModelerXYZ]

Hi Dukedog.

On the top layer, I would put a crossover between the 2 tracks and on one of the long sides, a couple of run around loops so that I could have a choice of 4 trains on the 2 tracks. As there is no interchange between the Top and bottom layers, I would be tempted to run the top layer on anolouge and the bottom on DCC. Otherwise you need to connect your controller to both at the same time, and thats a pain.

On the bottom layer, you still have the 2 reverse loops and 2 triangles, all centred on the pair of Ys in the centre. It may require up to 4 Reverse loop modules, but should be possible to get away with 2. Both the sections from the Left Y to the opening point of the loop point need to be isolated. The Triangles cannot be operated without a train reversing anyway, so that should be sufficient. Just don't put the point clips on either of those points and you will be ok.

XYZ

[Dukedog.]

Hi XYZ

Thank you for the reply, the top level would be just for the hogworts castle class x2 one in each direction with the station ect and a 3d hogwort castle jigsaw  for the grand children.

the bottom level needs looking at i think.

[Dukedog.]

updated layout for comment

[ntpntpntp]

Still got some wye formations / reverse loops created via the scissors crossover in the middle, so still needs DCC reverse-loop module(s). 

[What About The Bee]

Hi Dukedog

Much bigger fiddle yard.  Can't have too much fiddle yard! 

Still room for one or two industries for your freight service, if industrial switching is your interest.

The scissors double cross-over is kept as its own feature, instead of buried in a complex interlocking.  Your change will preserve the complexity of working trains and managing conflicts at the crossover.   Lots of engagement there

Here is where your insulated rail joiners should go.  The four tracks that come off of the scissors double crossover should be isolated at each end.  Your image was too small for two fushia lines at the scissors double crossover, so one line for two tracks will have to do.  Both tracks are insulated, even though only one fushia line is present. 

These four isolated tracks will have the auto-reverser feed.  Yet the scissors double crossover itself and remainder of track can all be fixed polarity.

You can never have back to back auto-reverser tracks.  So the scissors double crossover should be that fixed polarity section in between the two auto-reversed sections on the route your train takes.  There is a complexity in wiring the frogs itself, in that the frog should not itself be on an auto reverser, but work off your switch machine.  This preventing back to back auto reversers for longer locomotives bridging two auto reversers.

I think this is a definitely improved layout.  It preserves the features you originally sought with a bigger fiddle yard.

Any thoughts of making that fiddle yard double ended?

Bee

 

[Dukedog.]

Thank You Bee and  ntpntpntp

Thats great feed back, the points motors I shall be using will be the DCC concept ones the cobolt ip, so hopefully that will cope with frog issues layuot 3.pdflayuot 3.pdf

I have a hornby reverse module but think I need 2 

yes I have thought about double ending the fiddle yard just might lose some of the length if i do will look in to it as need to leave room for a access hole in both halfs the room is only 10ftx10ft

Edited July 7 by Dukedog.

[Dukedog.]

ok another update for comment

no upper layer

[What About The Bee]

Hi Dukedog 

Is the layout wall to wall in the room?

Which sides are accessible from the outside?

Can you sketch in the walls?

Bee

[atom3624]

It depends what you want to run on the tracks, but I'd keep the radii as large as possible - if it were possible 3rd radius minimum, but 4th and higher are better if you can if you're running anything larger than an 0-6-0 or diesel.

I always like to add the detail parts - like front steps, drain pipes, etc - but these cannot be added to many if you go below 3rd radius.

Al.

[ntpntpntp]

I think after a while I'd find it frustrating that there 4 tracks one side but only 2 tracks on the other side, so you cannot run 4 trains continuously around separate ovals. 

[Dukedog.]

Hi Bee yes it is wall to wall will need to put a removable section in where the door is (Bottom Right)

[Gordonvale]

I rather liked the stand alone upper upper level concept, where you can run trains requiring little supervision. That provides for something to occupy younger minds, whilst you grapple with running the lower level to your hearts content.

[What About The Bee]

Hi Dukedog,

At first, I was going to suggest moving the fiddle yard to the top (outside of the loops), as then it could be double ended easily.  But, with the walls now defined, that's not feasible.

I will make a firm recommendation before you build a single thing.  Get a large piece of cardboard and cut out the openings shown.  Support it horizontally at the height you intend for that board, and get into the openings.  Literally crawl under and stand up.  Try turning and moving around.  Move from one opening to the other.  Get the feel of maneuvering yourself in those spaces.

Why?

I think they are quite tight.  I'm not convinced you can turn around in some, as they may be too narrow.  You will also be required to bend like a pretzel to get into these holes.  Before you paint yourself into a very constricted corner, trial those openings.

Further, if this is for you and the grandchildren, will they fit with you in those spaces?  Its the interaction with the kids, the talking, pointing and sharing you will want.  Can't have that if you are locked in one hole, they in the other.

++++++

As to the layout itself.  I think it is just fine.  NTP rightly notes the 4 into 2 tracks as a limiting factor.  It might be, but it also might be the perfect challenge to stimulate the Train Master (you) to keep them from crashing.  Ditto all the potential conflicts when switching those scissors crossovers.  Stimulation via conflict.

As to the upper level?  I've come around to your point of view.  If that is for the grandchildren to run, then a simple layout will be better for them, age dependent.  You can always add interlockings and inclines later, as they show more interest.  

But try the cardboard test.  I think you may make a few slight changes 😉

Bee

Edited July 11 by What About The Bee
Punctuation.

[ntpntpntp]

Good point about the size of the central access holes Bee.   Did I read earlier that the squares represent less than 7cm?    So that makes the narrowest part less than 35cm or around 1'?  I'd struggle to get my head through the hole!!
Over the decades I've had a couple of exhibition layouts which either had a central operating well from the outset or could be configured that way as an option.  Not only did I find crawling underneath to gain access was very tiresome, but constantly turning round to check on what was happening behind me was literally a pain!  Never again 🙂 

[What About The Bee]

Hi NTP

67 mm / square, so yes, just under 7 cm.  Dukedog did mention one hole is accessed by a lift out section near the door, so that will easier to access.  

@Dukedog.Those holes need to be bigger.  Putting aside operations, you will need to build the layout.  It is one thing to pick up a derailed vehicle at maximum arm's reach, yet quite another to work on scenery at arm's reach. 

You could make the bench work more robust.  Then you can sit on top of it and crawl on it during construction.  This has obvious limitations.

÷÷

If you remove the central double track with double cross over, you can have one central well.  The one central hole becomes much bigger.  Seating now becomes available for you and the grandkids in the center well, something that may be very tight in your current design.  Easier to work on scenery, easier to run trains, particularly through the constricted zone.  

Bee

[Dukedog.]

Thank you all for the input will look at some other options and see what i can come up with