Another Sheffie layout

[Sheffie]

Bigger and better than before—but still essentially the same thing. A large double loop through hilly and forested terrain. 

 

But where the previous layout was 6’ x 2’6”, this one is going to be 8’ x 4’. 

 

I’m planning on learning from my mistakes and making the second layout a significant improvement on the first. I plan on putting all the sidings at the front, outside the loop,  so the trains will be more visible and the points will be easier to reach. 

 

That means that the inside of the loop will be free for scenic rail at its best. Depending on what I can fit in, I hope to get something that climbs and loops up and down again. But I’ll be happy enough if it just winds through the forest. 

 

I’ll post something from SCARM when I’ve hammered out a plan. 

[Bob_NZ]

 

Looking forward to seeing your track plan once its finalized.

[Sheffie]

Alright, here are a couple of early renders.

The first image is from the right hand end. You'd need to be standing in the wall to see this view.

 

The second is from the left hand end, which people will actually be able to view.

Notes

- I'm considering making the two tracks in the lower left corner into a tunnel section. This would leave the user looking at a higher than usual amount of "edging", but I hope to distract them with my Shinto shrine model.

- The infield section is very much unfinished. It's pretty much just me throwing the curves I already have into the mix. (I also had to use a flex track piece to make it join up.) I'm considering everything from a tiny rural freight station and siding up to a coal mine, depending on what I can find.

- Curves on the outer loops are R315 and R348, which will allow just abut anything to go around. Curves on the infield section are R249 and R150, which limits that line to the DE10 locomotive and industrial freight. I actually really like this restriction.

- The forest loop climbs at about 2% gradient for much of its length. After going over the truss bridge, it drops at 4% down the spiral. This means that the forest loop is effectively a one-way section of track. Again, I'm happy with this restriction.

- The sidings you see allow me room to purchase two EMUs, one freight train, and two sets of coaches before everything is full. And a couple of Kokis 🙂

Edited August 19, 2019 by Sheffie

[Sheffie]

And here's a shot of the plan, for those who want the overview.

 

- I like the idea that the locomotives can go back from their sidings, through the engine shed to be fixed up, and hook directly up to a freight or passenger train. This does mean that there's a separate power feed for those tracks (F62 in the lower centre of the layout), but I do have a third controller, so it won't be an issue.

- I also like the way that all trains will feed in to the outer loop and (if desired) can immediately switch to the inner loop. I think I can have trains going in opposite directions (on inner/outer loops) without too much hassle, although I can really only do that with EMUs, since they are inherently reversible.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Sheffie

[Kiha66]

Looks good Tim!  While I'm not sure about the footprint, have you considered adding the kato turntable and roundhouse in this layout?  It'd be a nice way to show off motive power and be more than just another yard.  You could also use it to turn locomotives.

[Sheffie]

41 minutes ago, Kiha66 said:

Looks good Tim!  While I'm not sure about the footprint, have you considered adding the kato turntable and roundhouse in this layout?  It'd be a nice way to show off motive power and be more than just another yard.  You could also use it to turn locomotives.

 

Not really sure about a turntable. I realize that it's a practical way of getting lots of locos onto a single track. But I don't particularly want my locos hidden in sheds, i'm not sure about the size, and I'm concerned about possible maintenance issues.

 

Update: the size isn't a deal breaker, according to SCARM. So it's a possibility.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Sheffie

[Keith]

Hi,

would it also be worth just sketching up a version with the main lines in front of the sidings just to see how it looks. It would only push the sidings back a small amount, but would allow more sweeping curves. Another possibility is have the line that goes to the sidings continue on and connect to the main line on the left hand side, this would also allow for a long sweeping run with a backdrop of the yards.

 

Just random thoughts from someone who can’t get his mind around his own design.

 

Regards

keith

[Kamome]

As you have a rural line winding up the hill, plus you seem to have some interest in Kyushu rolling stock, perhaps consider a switchback to add a different dynamic to the operations? 

 

 

 

 

[Sheffie]

Alright. Thanks for all the suggestions. I have taken them on board. (With the exception of switchbacks! I think that would not be much fun to drive.)

Here's what it might look like...

Things to note about this one:

- There is a loop on the left hand side, which would likely be used by freight trains returning to the depot.

- The sidings for EMUs now feed directly onto the outer loop. I wanted to connect them to the island platform siding, but there just wasn't enough room (one of my EMUs is five cars, thus it needs a 3x248 siding).

- The turntable feels a little crazy. I don't really have any idea how long a spur needs to be, in order to store a locomotive. Putting it another way, I don't know how far away a locomotive needs to be, in order to avoid bumping into one on the next line. Finally, I have no clue how long the DF11z is. Ultimately, the turntable might yet be replaced with lots of branches.

- There's still room for a container yard!

- I'm probably retiring the silver truss bridge. It wasn't the right length to go over the spiral, and I'm not sure if it's worth the hassle of building a water feature for it. Perhaps a little pond in the hills.

- I don't know what I'm going to do with tunnel entrances, if the north west corner is going to be under a hill. It's looking complicated.

[Bob_NZ]

For my Tomix turntable tracks I would allow say 7cm for the track pieces connected to the table then add on the storage track.  It depends what brand turntable you use as they have differing diverging track angles and some may require a longer access length.   

In the center of your layout you have a loop on one side of the double track.  If this is going to be a station then consider running your forest loop parallel for a short distance - if you have a short wheelbase passenger unit then it could make use of the station stop to transfer passengers to a main line train. Consider an industry somewhere on your forest loop as it gives a reason to have your train stopped there - you don't need to add a siding as it could be a line-side stop.

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by gcmr_new_zealand
spelling

[Sheffie]

Okay. Kato USA has published a good deal of technical information about their turntable.

https://www.katousa.com/N/Unitrack/Turntable.html

It looks like a very nice item, but since the actual rotating track is 160mm long, it isn’t going to be long enough for the DF11Z, or an EH500 for example. So I’m going back to planning a maintenance area centered on the two track engine shed. 

[Sheffie]

So here's another one without the turntable.

This time I've got the engine shed on a different siding from the locomotives. Depending on what I want to put actually in the shed, I can buy 2 extra locomotives compared to what I have already purchased. This layout also leaves room for one EMU purchase (pencilled in: Kato's upcoming All Around The Kyushu, 4 car set) and two more miscellaneous rolling stock trains (under consideration: 4 chinese coaches for the DF11Z to pull and/or Minitown C64K coal wagons, 8 car set).

 

I'm just not worrying about the forest part right now. I need to get the logistics of the platforms and stock yards ironed out. The recreational area will work out just fine.

[Sheffie]

And here's one in 3D just to show how the tunnel corner might work.

[chadbag]

You do realize, you can decouple your train purchases from your lay out 🙂

 

I know you are trying to self limit by coupling them, but resistance is futile, and you'll just keep growing the size of the layout as you find new trains to buy, in order to compensate.

 

[Kiha66]

Looks neat!  I'd check the S curve on the inner loop with a temporary setup first before deciding on using that, I know some of my trains really dont like tight S curves.

[railsquid]

1 hour ago, chadbag said:

You do realize, you can decouple your train purchases from your lay out 🙂

 

I know you are trying to self limit by coupling them, but resistance is futile

 

This is me over the period of about 5 years :

•  I'll only buy a couple of trains
•  I'll only buy as many trains as will fit on the layout
• I need to create more sidings
• I'll only buy trains I've actually been on
• I'll only buy trains I've actually seen
• I'll only buy trains which fit my layout location and period
  • unless they were available at a "it would be rude not to price"
  • or I really like them anyway
• Wait, this book covering my layout's locational prototype shows a huge variety of interesting stock which used to run in the area, oh look MicroAce does that one and that one
• I'll only buy trains which fit into the available storage space

Me last week:

•  Oooh cool, someone sells case inlays which allow me to double the storage density per case, that should keep me going for another 6 months

 

[Sheffie]

It’s funny. 

 

I was just coming here to post post something along the lines of this: I don’t want to run into the same problem three trains down the line—if I accept that I’m going to want to own more trains than I can fit on the layout... I will have a *lot* more freedom in terms of both the train purchases and the layout. 

 

So, chad, squid, you’re both right. I am going to re-draw this from scratch and see if I can’t make it prettier. And maybe there’ll be space for a turntable after all. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Sheffie

[Sheffie]

7 hours ago, Kiha66 said:

I know some of my trains really dont like tight S curves.

 

I haven’t had this problem yet. I did have an issue with the E127 (which has close couplers) on an S bend, but I put that down to the fact that it was also starting to go uphill at that point. (And the Banetsu Monogatari coaches with their fancy close couplers were fine.)

 

Point is, there will be a sedate double track 100% flat mainline with nothing tighter than an R282 curve, and there will be a single track line that winds and climbs with R249 and R150 curves. The latter will be used by short bogey freight trains with rapido couplers. And possibly a 415 series EMU? But anything that can’t handle the hilly track will just run on the other. 

[cteno4]

Try to keep your winding and climbing line as smooth as possible both in curves and vertically as the short bogie and 2 axle freight cars with rapidos can get cranky on these. They especially don’t like track joints that bow up or down (as you can get with grade changes). We have had cranky spots on the sectional club layout and Ttrak as the track junctions at module joints can get a tad twisted and not totally clean joints and the 2 axle freights will randomly derail. Some are due to some rapidos being a bit too floppy others just random permutations of jiggling around. I’ve also men meaning to see if a bit more weight in some of them might help with better coupler tension, but it happens some with the sushi train that has a bit of weight in each car with the sushi erasers. Tail end guard cars hop off a lot and I expect this is due to them being very light and a bit of crack the whip going on.

 

cheers

 

jeff

[nah00]

11 hours ago, Kiha66 said:

Looks neat!  I'd check the S curve on the inner loop with a temporary setup first before deciding on using that, I know some of my trains really dont like tight S curves.

 

Seconded. I saw that and immediately imagined derailments, especially if it's set on a hill. 

[Sheffie]

Good advice, Jeff. Thanks. 

 

I am hoping that the expanded polystyrene ramps will help, by keeping the gradient constant. I also wanted to experiment with making multiple cuts across the ballast on a long straight, to allow it to gradually change its gradient. I forget who suggested that, but it sounded like a great idea 

[cteno4]

Yep that may have been me as I champion making as smooth a vertical transition as possible doing that trick. It works well and you can just razor saw thru most of the ballast (leave like like half the very top flat layer under the rail). Then bend carefully against a large, hard rounded surface to make a nice gentle transition curve vertically. Trick is to engineer into your track plan as long a piece of track that you can that spans the grade start. This really helps not force that vertical change to a track junction which is when they cause problems.

 

Also doing a little easement in the grade if you can so it starts gentle and then goes up to your full grade a little bit later helps. But it will take a little more distance or a higher middle grade to fit in grade easements. This is done easily by doing the technique of using like 5mm ply for the subroadbed and then cutting out your track plan for the elevated bits like a half inch on either side. Then you can just pull that bit up slowly and glue wood block risers where needed to keep on place and do the right easement, grade and such. Makes a very solid, integrated track base.

 

one of our club members way back was really into all sorts of grades (some up to 6%!) on his layouts (he did a lot over a few years) and he had a lot of issues along the way and we kept working at how to keep them to a minimum. The cut ballast transition was one of the best. His was also not nailed down and putting in some pins around then transition areas also helped as the force of the transition I guess cause track to slide around and then uncouplings. Getting to get him to lower the gradients was hard (he loved to cram a lot into a small area) but one of the best things to make things run better. Also trying not to do the gradient transition right at a curve to straight transition helped. But most of his trains were higher speed, larger trains and he would run them fast so (to deal with higher grades) a lot of issues there as well. With yours it’s more just the slow bumping and lurching of the small freights that can dislodge rapido couplings on them. If it’s an issue you could look at more positive couplers on the freights.

 

cheers,

 

jeff

[Madsing]

I had exactly the same problem on my layout as it is very small. Recently, I used an Excel sheet to compute the elevation of every piece of track along each slope. The sheet first computes the average slope, then decides to assign half of that number to the first and last pieces of track, then recomputes all other slopes (I hope you get what I mean).

This is what it looks like:

 

 

I works very well for me, and I have been able to achieve slopes of up to 6% (but I run only very short trains).

[cteno4]

Nice! Yes the steeper the slope the more the easement and vertically curved tracks are needed.

 

jeff

[Sheffie]

Here is the latest.

Complete with 3D renders from the right, and from the back/left.