Tomix Door layout

[Clayton]

On 5/6/2020 at 4:39 PM, chadbag said:

plexiglass is a good idea.  Not sure 3/4" is enough (it may well be).  Anything with a little momentum may top 3/4"

 

I have removable plexiglass sections rising a couple inches around mine.  Has saved me a few times.

I was thinking anything over an inch will be overkill and could affect the view. 3/4 of an inch would be the minimum. Which would be like a security fence to size. I am not ruling out 1" high plexiglass. What did you use to connect the plexiglass to the layout?

Edited May 8, 2020 by MoPac

[cteno4]

Best to play with the height visually as well. May be best to be taller than trains so that the edge is not right at the train or in the middle of it. We did our club layout at about 1.75” tall to keep out of the line of site.

 

you can polish the top edge but that takes some time and effort.

 

jeff

 

 

[Clayton]

1 hour ago, cteno4 said:

Best to play with the height visually as well. May be best to be taller than trains so that the edge is not right at the train or in the middle of it. We did our club layout at about 1.75” tall to keep out of the line of site.

 

you can polish the top edge but that takes some time and effort.

 

jeff

 

 

What did your club used to attach the plexiglass?

[chadbag]

9 hours ago, MoPac said:

I was thinking anything over an inch will be overkill and could affect the view. 3/4 of an inch would be the minimum. Which would be like a security fence to size. I am not ruling out 1" high plexiglass. What did you use to connect the plexiglass to the layout?

 

So my layout (which is a "temporary" for playing around and testing things) is made from pink foam mounted on a frame.  I made the frame using 2x4 type boards, and layed the pink foam down so it splits the nominal 2" surface in half.  Ie, there is a small lip of wood around the pink foam.   I frilled holes in that wood and used 2' long pieces of plexiglass, with a dowel in the hole just outside the pink foam.  So the plexiglass just slides in between the foam and the dowels.

 

1" is probably ok.  Mine is 2".  My layout is low enough (sits on a banquet type folding table) that the plexiglass does not block any view.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by chadbag

[Clayton]

2 hours ago, chadbag said:

 

So my layout (which is a "temporary" for playing around and testing things) is made from pink foam mounted on a frame.  I made the frame using 2x4 type boards, and layed the pink foam down so it splits the nominal 2" surface in half.  Ie, there is a small lip of wood around the pink foam.   I frilled holes in that wood and used 2' long pieces of plexiglass, with a dowel in the hole just outside the pink foam.  So the plexiglass just slides in between the foam and the dowels.

 

1" is probably ok.  Mine is 2".  My layout is low enough (sits on a banquet type folding table) that the plexiglass does not block any view.

 

 

Cool thanks for the insight Chad

[Clayton]

On 5/6/2020 at 8:16 PM, gavino200 said:

 

It also can be a problem for couplers even at low speeds. It something about the wiggle one way followed by a wiggle in the opposite direction. Sometimes slightly troublesome cars, that don't uncouple anywhere else with uncouple on an S-curve. A very short straight segment is enough to solve the problem. Regardless, I you choose not to do that, I hope you have better luck than me and that your cars run with zero problems. 

 

I think it's an awesome layout concept.  I look forward to watching your progress.

I went back to explore your concern about the s curve. I see that this is no different than if I was to add a double crossover in this area. Actually this is wider than a double crossover in which this S curve is too narrow. Though I know many people who run their freight trains on theses and have little to no problems. On the plus side I don't have to worry about binding my cars since the majority of them have truck mounted couplers and not body mount. Most of my cars and locomotives are over 15 years old. Then a good portion of those are 20+ and I have some from the early 70's and late 60's too. The majority have Microtrains trucks and or compatible couplers.

[gavino200]

10 hours ago, MoPac said:

I went back to explore your concern about the s curve. I see that this is no different than if I was to add a double crossover in this area. Actually this is wider than a double crossover in which this S curve is too narrow. Though I know many people who run their freight trains on theses and have little to no problems. On the plus side I don't have to worry about binding my cars since the majority of them have truck mounted couplers and not body mount. Most of my cars and locomotives are over 15 years old. Then a good portion of those are 20+ and I have some from the early 70's and late 60's too. The majority have Microtrains trucks and or compatible couplers.

 

 If you look closely at the double crossover there is there is a very short straight segment built into it between the curves. That's really all you need. But also, a double crossover is itself a trick piece of track that upsets a lot of tempermental trains and coaches. 

 

I've had issues with s-curves. You may not. There are lots of much wiser people than me here. I'd suggest you ask @railsquid, or @cteno4, or @inobu, or @Cat. If they say it's ok then go ahead with no worries. Good luck! 🙂

Edited May 9, 2020 by gavino200

[Cat]

* blush *  Thanks for the shout out; I think the others have more continuous experience, but I have been model railroading off and on for about half a century now.

I try to avoid S-curves primarily for better looking operations, so the cars don't jerk around the corners.  The standard minimum straight easement I aim for is the length of two trucks coupled together.  Next best minimum is the length of one truck and it's coupler.  Last gasp is the length of one truck's wheelbase, so at least that truck isn't turning in two different directions at once.  Failing that, if there really is no room for an easement, it best be in a place that can be easily reached when there is the occasional derailment from the jerking.

**edit**
The fractional track pieces from Kato and Tomix are superb for fitting in the very short easements.

Edited May 9, 2020 by Cat

[inobu]

On 5/6/2020 at 11:11 AM, MoPac said:

 With my freight trains I will be running normal speeds up to 70 scale mph on the straights and 40 scale mph in this area. Yes, I do agree running a bullet train at 200+ scale mph would send any train flying off the tracks on those curves.😬

 

Replace the curves with the super elevated curves or elevate them yourself. I think its like 1mm difference.

 

[Clayton]

3 hours ago, gavino200 said:

 

 If you look closely at the double crossover there is there is a very short straight segment built into it between the curves. That's really all you need. But also, a double crossover is itself a trick piece of track that upsets a lot of tempermental trains and coaches. 

 

I've had issues with s-curves. You may not. There are lots of much wiser people than me here. I'd suggest you ask @railsquid, or @cteno4, or @inobu, or @Cat. If they say it's ok then go ahead with no worries. Good luck! 🙂

The point I am making the s curve on a double crossover is tighter than the s curve between the three track in which my train will be passing on. This is why I didn't want a double crossover. I seen too many string linings on club layouts over the past 30 years since I've been in this hobby. To me, this double crossover track is only good for yard service. Not for mainline running. Tight S curves can cause issues i.e. running a train through a tight radius then snake it through a double crossover. This is not the case I am not running tight radius curves nor over these crazy crossovers which will cause a stringlining effect. Also I am not planning to run my normal 1 scale mile freight train on this little layout. 

Edited May 9, 2020 by MoPac

[Clayton]

3 hours ago, Cat said:

* blush *  Thanks for the shout out; I think the others have more continuous experience, but I have been model railroading off and on for about half a century now.

I try to avoid S-curves primarily for better looking operations, so the cars don't jerk around the corners.  The standard minimum straight easement I aim for is the length of two trucks coupled together.  Next best minimum is the length of one truck and it's coupler.  Last gasp is the length of one truck's wheelbase, so at least that truck isn't turning in two different directions at once.  Failing that, if there really is no room for an easement, it best be in a place that can be easily reached when there is the occasional derailment from the jerking.

**edit**
The fractional track pieces from Kato and Tomix are superb for fitting in the very short easements.

This is what I was try to explain to gavino. I don't have the typical short s curve as one would have if they was running a double crossover on a tight radius track with a half scale mile long train. I to have seen too many mistakes with people running tight S curve radius.

[Clayton]

57 minutes ago, inobu said:

 

Replace the curves with the super elevated curves or elevate them yourself. I think its like 1mm difference.

 

Tomix don't have this option unfortunately.

[inobu]

18 minutes ago, MoPac said:

Tomix don't have this option unfortunately.

You can do it yourself. The outer rails only need to be raised 1mm.

 

Inobu

[bill937ca]

22 minutes ago, MoPac said:

Tomix don't have this option unfortunately.

Tomix has canted track in sets or available individually.  I have it but don't use on my current layout.

 

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10089703

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10150039

 

Various choices in approach curves. You still need to select canted curves pieces.

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10312219

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10312216

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10312212

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10312209

 

Tomix generally offers far more options than Kato.

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by bill937ca

[Clayton]

48 minutes ago, inobu said:

You can do it yourself. The outer rails only need to be raised 1mm.

 

Inobu

Thats good to know thanks!

[Clayton]

48 minutes ago, bill937ca said:

Tomix has canted track in sets or available individually.  I have it but don't use on my current layout.

 

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10089703

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10150039

 

Various choices in approach curves. You still need to select canted curves pieces.

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10312219

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10312216

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10312212

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10312209

 

Tomix generally offers far more options than Kato.

 

I did see these when I was designing my layout. it was the aspect of it being wide. If they had some that was similar to Kato's then yes, I would have gone in this direction. I would have used the double track of Tomix bt it is mainly for elevated tracks. The barrier is the reason why.

[gavino200]

2 hours ago, MoPac said:

This is what I was try to explain to gavino. I don't have the typical short s curve as one would have if they was running a double crossover on a tight radius track with a half scale mile long train. I to have seen too many mistakes with people running tight S curve radius.

 

You'll probably be fine. Obviously you'll test it before you glue it down, so you don't have to change a thing unless you have a problem. 

 

Not sure if you solved your plexiglass fixation issue. Chad's method works fine. But if you're using 'fascia' on the front of your layout there is another solution that hides the fixation. I'm assuming you're putting the track on foamboard. You can make the fascia flush with the top of the foamboard. When you cut your plexiglass make it the height of the foam plus the height that you want it to raise up as a fence. Glue the plexi glass to the side of the foamboard. Then put the fascia on. What you have then is a nice plexiglass fence with no visible fixaton.

 

This is it. 

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by gavino200

[inobu]

The bottom image is the prime example of rounded corners. By adding the rounded corners you can gain a few inches giving you the ability to

widen the radius further back.

 

Oh, looking at the image gave me an idea.......

 

 

Inobu

[Clayton]

@gavino200 Is this what you were referring to? 

 

[gavino200]

1 hour ago, MoPac said:

@gavino200 Is this what you were referring to? 

 

 

Either that or just putting one of these between the curves. The way you had it looks more interesting. Just test it well before committing to it. If it's problematic you can add short straight segments between the curves, starting with the smallest and increasing by increments until the problem is solved. I would be delighted if I were wrong and you have zero problems with your original design. But if you do, then breaking up the S with a short straight segment is the cure.

 

https://www.ebay.com/i/114193721447?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=114193721447&targetid=937869230527&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9005767&poi=&campaignid=9423618897&mkgroupid=98498887191&rlsatarget=aud-762207186714:pla-937869230527&abcId=1141016&merchantid=101689562&gclid=Cj0KCQjwzN71BRCOARIsAF8pjfh1gaIpfdIrgeLewe5-zQVM918p71nuFsxoFW3jCYjY41i9wmK1ERAaAhCHEALw_wcB

[Clayton]

1 hour ago, gavino200 said:

 

Either that or just putting one of these between the curves. The way you had it looks more interesting. Just test it well before committing to it. If it's problematic you can add short straight segments between the curves, starting with the smallest and increasing by increments until the problem is solved. I would be delighted if I were wrong and you have zero problems with your original design. But if you do, then breaking up the S with a short straight segment is the cure.

 

https://www.ebay.com/i/114193721447?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=114193721447&targetid=937869230527&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9005767&poi=&campaignid=9423618897&mkgroupid=98498887191&rlsatarget=aud-762207186714:pla-937869230527&abcId=1141016&merchantid=101689562&gclid=Cj0KCQjwzN71BRCOARIsAF8pjfh1gaIpfdIrgeLewe5-zQVM918p71nuFsxoFW3jCYjY41i9wmK1ERAaAhCHEALw_wcB

Okay I think I see what you are talking about the 1322 is a crossover not a double slip. The train cannot cross from the bottom track to the next track over. It will have to continue on to the third track. The second/middle track is a straight through track without any ability to change track.

Edited May 10, 2020 by MoPac

[AhmadKane]

1 hour ago, MoPac said:

Okay I think I see what you are talking about the 1322 is a crossover not a double slip. The train cannot cross from the bottom track to the next track over. It will have to continue on to the third track. The second/middle track is a straight through track without any ability to change track.

 

Yeah, that S bend gives the layout more dynamics. But it'd be best to test it out first. I've also got S bends in my layout and they are ok enough... But with the redesign, I've added some straights between the S bend and the curve, so far it's better.

 

 

[Clayton]

4 hours ago, gavino200 said:

 

Either that or just putting one of these between the curves. The way you had it looks more interesting. Just test it well before committing to it. If it's problematic you can add short straight segments between the curves, starting with the smallest and increasing by increments until the problem is solved. I would be delighted if I were wrong and you have zero problems with your original design. But if you do, then breaking up the S with a short straight segment is the cure.

 

https://www.ebay.com/i/114193721447?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=114193721447&targetid=937869230527&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9005767&poi=&campaignid=9423618897&mkgroupid=98498887191&rlsatarget=aud-762207186714:pla-937869230527&abcId=1141016&merchantid=101689562&gclid=Cj0KCQjwzN71BRCOARIsAF8pjfh1gaIpfdIrgeLewe5-zQVM918p71nuFsxoFW3jCYjY41i9wmK1ERAaAhCHEALw_wcB

Those pieces in reference are mainly for fillers. For spacers as you mentioned is not recommended to make tracks wider for Tomix tracks. Check out my layout again and you will see that all of the track are uniformed with one another. I have one set of the filler tracks in three different spots two of the spots are parallel with each other. The other is used on my connecting track between the fueling platform and the turntable.

Edited May 10, 2020 by MoPac

[Clayton]

1 hour ago, AhmadKane said:

 

Yeah, that S bend gives the layout more dynamics. But it'd be best to test it out first. I've also got S bends in my layout and they are ok enough... But with the redesign, I've added some straights between the S bend and the curve, so far it's better.

 

 

If you look at my layout again you will see that the crossing track 1322 is the same thing as a straight track at 140mm long in what you've mentioned.

[Clayton]

Update 

 

I did some measuring with my Railmodeler Pro and the yard can hold fifty 60' cars or eighty 50' cars with room to spare . The double track fueling/sanding platform can hold eight SD40-2 locomotives with leftover room, four on each track. Each stall on the turntable I can squeeze two GP38-2's on each track. The top right spur track can hold comfortably five 60' cars. The middle left spur can hold three 60' cars. The bottom right spur can support four 60' cars. The interchange track can support one SD40-2 and three 60' cars to clear the switch to back into the bottom right spur.

Edited May 11, 2020 by MoPac