My layout - Plan done! Time to start (page 7)

[Martijn Meerts]

They do update it, but not very regularly.. I also don't think it includes all track libraries, the last version I tested didn't include Tomix for example.

[IST]

100 EUR is too much for me for a software. There are a lot of people who use Wintrack in Hungary (and I really do not want to know from which source...) and they like it so much, but for 100 EUR? Beside of this when I saw that Anyrail is continuously update the database, I prefer to use that. It not so shiny and it does not have 3D look, but it is OK for my goals.

[Melandir]

I use anyrail too and  I see that it have a couple of missing feature that are useful to me

 

a ) change track colors to better understand the different loops

b ) poor handling of spirals, understandable because the program works in 2D but that make difficult to understand were spiral start and end and design the proper track connection

Edited January 24, 2014 by Melandir

[Sinus]

Wintrack does not support Tomix track unlike AnyRail.

[kvp]

Wintrack is an old piece of software. It's two main points are the 3D design/display and it's parametric track generation function. This means, that you can make your own track pieces by entering the parameters of unsupported set pieces. You can even make turnouts this way and they even render correctly in 3D. It's very useful if someone is using flex track or handlaying turnouts, which is very common in europe. Otherwise it's a bit outdated. The demo version is free and the only feature missing is the save function, but for small layouts, you can always save a screen capture and reenter the data again if needed. (some say that the demo code can be patched to make save work too)

[NJHA]

This topic has gone a bit far from the original idea but that's ok, i already have a lot of information that i needed for my layout.

 

Recently i came about this software that i didn't knew about. It's called SCARM, its free and seems competent enough.

Possibly you can't do everything that can be done with wintrack but has a 3d rendering aspect. I have tried it, you get a bit lost with the controls at the beginning (i haven't read the instructions on the site), but you get there. It has libraries for several manufacturers and allows you to design you own objects.

Maybe is worth a try... it saves 100€ for track/trains :)

[NJHA]

Hi there! 

 

Over the last few days i have been around, reading a lot and doing a lot of research on track. I have also been trying SCARM out.

So i decided to review my layout, just to make sure everything is ok before buying track... and i located a potential problem. I have been reviewing my grades and found out i missed something... almost all of my points are on a grade instead of being on flat terrain. This is due to the layout having 3 levels.

Also, the industry sidings are on a grade, meaning the cars will roll out of the siding and into the main track. This can't be.

So i guess i will go once again on the drawing board and try to come up with a plan that doesn't have this kind of issues.

 

Another thing I noticed and i wanted to check that with you guys. I think planning layouts with finetrack its easier than planning with unitrack especially for double track with curves and large curve ratios. For instance: kato has 15 and 45 degree curves up to radius 305. But when you go to radius 348 you only get 30 and 45 degree curves. So if by any chance you use a single 305 15 degree curve , you can not design a parallel to it using ratio 348, since you don't have a 348-15 curve on kato. I am sure there is a logical explanation for this but it puzzles me.  

[cteno4]

njha,

 

you could thing about leveling the grade out a bit when you hit points and then level off the sidings just after the point.

 

tomix does have a bit wider selection of track to choose from. but the tomix track spacing is wider which can make things tight if you are trying to get some very tight configurations.

 

jeff

[kvp]

tomix does have a bit wider selection of track to choose from.

Not to mention they have 37 mm pieces, which helps with correct spacing, because you can correctly offset track diagonally too. I'm not aware of a kato 33 mm piece. The same is true for turnouts which tend to be multiples of normal track sections, so you can always swap out a straight to a turnout, crossover or double crossover or in case of a mini tracks, even a curve. The latter is much better for micro and mini layouts and a suprisingly high number of trains can run on them.

 

I would not be worried by having turnouts on a grade, just make sure there are no grade changes, so it's a straight up or down across the turnout and then the trains won't even notice it. The industry sidings should be leveled, but you can do that by making it level after the turnout. The only difference would be that the mainline will go up/down from there so you will need a retaining wall between the two. (this is fairly common for the prototype too)

[katoftw]

Maybe just a 2 level figure 8 similar to the first layout, then add the main features from the second layout.

Edited January 29, 2014 by katoftw

[Densha]

I use anyrail too and  I see that it have a couple of missing feature that are useful to me

 

a ) change track colors to better understand the different loops

Just to fix the misunderstanding. You can change track colours in Anyrail by creating a section.

[NJHA]

Maybe just a 2 level figure 8 similar to the first layout, then add the main features from the second layout.

Almost that. 

I have reworked my original track plan and tried to include "features" from the follow up track plans. 

 

This time i have worked my plan as a two phase layout. This way I can spread the financial investment. 

So, this is phase1 track plan: 

 

And then i will evolve the track plan to a phase2 layout:

 

 

Opinions, comments?  :)

[kvp]

This seems much less playable than the previous one. The two loops are 100% separate, so no crossing possible, even for shunting and only 2 trains can be placed on each loop (instead of 7 in the previous one) and the industry is not really shuntable, because there is no yard, just a single track. Also, instead of one bigger and one smaller station, now you have 2 small stations. I would at least add another track at the top (with an island platform) and a crossover somewhere on the right vertical double tracked line. The industry also needs another track. Anyway, the single track elevated branchline (the blue one) doesn't seems right for me, since it crosses a station two times. It would be more realistic if it just went along the edge as the 2 other tracks. This looks more complex but i think it's less realistic than the previous one, both in look and in possible operations.

[NJHA]

This seems much less playable than the previous one. The two loops are 100% separate, so no crossing possible, even for shunting and only 2 trains can be placed on each loop (instead of 7 in the previous one) and the industry is not really shuntable, because there is no yard, just a single track. Also, instead of one bigger and one smaller station, now you have 2 small stations. I would at least add another track at the top (with an island platform) and a crossover somewhere on the right vertical double tracked line. The industry also needs another track. Anyway, the single track elevated branchline (the blue one) doesn't seems right for me, since it crosses a station two times. It would be more realistic if it just went along the edge as the 2 other tracks. This looks more complex but i think it's less realistic than the previous one, both in look and in possible operations.

 

Thank you for your comments kvp. 

 

As for the 100% separate loops, you are correct. I forgot to add a crossover to the layout, but i have a few places where i can put it.

 

The lack of industry yard... well i plan to have a industry yard, but as you can see there is a turnout for it on the possible station. I don't really know the implications of having a train stationed over a turnout so that area is still "under consideration". I added the line just to help organize my ideas and give you guys a clear notion of what i intend.

Is it usual for japan to have a industry line connecting to a passenger station, or should the line depart from the main line? 

 

As for the stations... the above station has 1116mm of free track.  The diagonal station has 1302mm of free track (assuming the industry turnout can count as free track). The above station is the exact same size as the one on the original plan. The diagonal one is 64mm shorter than the one on the last plan. I am planning on trains no longer than 6 cars and no shinkansens. At an average of 150mm per car i estimate that  a 7 car train can fit on the upper station and a 8 car train can fit on the diagonal one. Am i wrong on my calculations? Its about 150mm for regular passenger cars and around 170mm for shinkansen cars,isn't it?  

   

Now for the blue line... that one is a pain. I wanted a different line from just a "go around" line, but i have to agree with you, it is not that real to have a line crossing over a station twice. And it also poses some problems if i plan on expanding the station at a latter time.  I think i will have to rethink that. 

[katoftw]

trying to fit too much intp small space.  simplify it.  keep the layout almost flat

 

double loop your phase 1 layout.  i have created a master piece to show you my idea.

 

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e189/deejayryry/V3_phase1_zpsebed5e9e.jpg

 

2 lines

a few idea for yards

tunnel at back it rails get too close, not sure on dimensions.

bottom 180 curves could even have 3rd road as a passing siding.

or bottom 180 curves coud even be raised up to create hills/passes.

 

depending a free space, might even get in a sinle line tramway using R150 curves.

[kvp]

It's always a bad idea to park a train above a turnout. This can cause pickup problems, so it might be hard to start it and having a track with possibly loose cars coming into the side of a train is always a bad idea, especially in real life. So the rule usually is that an industry siding (or a freight yard) can be connected to a station, but it's always connected at the station's turnout area, so usually at one end and never from the middle of a passanger platform. Not to mention the turnout would cause a few clearance problems with a platform so close and cutting away from the platform is out of the question most of the time..

[NJHA]

@Kvp : Thank you for the advice and explanation on the turnouts.

 

Ok. Now on to version 4 and hopefully final.

 

I just took katoftw master piece (thank you for taking the time! ) and made it fit on my size constraints. I like it! Simple enough to be operated by childreen on the loop and with some switching for the advanced user.

Also some free space for a bit of decoration/scenery.

Tram line is a big question mark for now, i think i will wait a while and develop my skills first.  

This is a unitrack version, i will make a tomix finetrack version and decide on what i like best.

 

This plan allows me to park 5 trains and keep 2 running. My "parking spaces" allow trains from around 1m (7 cars, 14cm each) up to near 1,5m (around 10 cars). I plan to use 6 cars trains so i will be ok.

 

Again, comments are welcome, i also would like to thank you all for your inputs on this layout, they have been valuable. 

 

Just a small question: Is the viaduct/bridge over the "industry" lines ok/real? Or the industry lines should cut before crossing the main line? 

 

Here goes a very colorful track plan :)

 

 

 

[Mudkip Orange]

Viaduct over the end of industrial trackage is perfectly realistic, see the Tsurumi area for myriad examples.

 

However, it looks like the pier is right where the middle track is... so you'll have to either move it or kitbash a straddle bent.

[katoftw]

looks good.

 

the 3rd lowest platform i'd probably lose, as you done need 2 island platform sharing a single track.  and make a 2 track yard in the location instead.

 

and yup the middle track in your freight yard goes into a pier.  either shorten the track or relocate it above the upper track.  maybe even just put s S64 in between the points/R718 curve and make all the tracks 66mm apart.

 

or use a #4 point and R481 on the upper 2 tracks with the catenary poles (if using them) from the inside of these 2 33mm spaced tracks, similar to a container yard unloading area.  although an unloading area wouldn't go under a bridge/viaduct.

 

maybe a 3 line on the inside of the bottom larger curve area.  using #4 points and whatever 33mm dia curve will fit inside the inside curve.  as a passing/old skool maintenence siding.

 

but it's a great starting point for the kids.  nothing too difficult to drive wise for kids.  just start with the mainlines and stations on a flat surface.  and add yards and inclines/declines for progression later on.

Edited February 3, 2014 by katoftw

[NJHA]

Yeap the track hits a pier.

I can always either move the track or not place the pier. it's a minor thing i guess. 

 

I have worked on the finetrack version. It is similar to this one, but with less small bits. Funny enough, or maybe not, even though the finetrack has less track elements, kato option still manages to be less expensive so i guess its kato unitrack.

 

Now i have a bit more technical question.

I plan on going DCC  with this layout. Can i design my own controller switch for the turnouts? I have seen a few electronic proposal for switch controllers and i am comfortable with a soldering iron and electronic devices.

Going for my own switch controllers, what is your opinion? Should i buy the variation sets from KATO or just the turnouts?

 

Finally getting somewhere! 

[kvp]

I plan on going DCC with this layout. Can i design my own controller switch for the turnouts? I have seen a few electronic proposal for switch controllers and i am comfortable with a soldering iron and electronic devices.

Any DCC compatible DC motor turnout decoder will work if it supports pulse mode operation. Most open source DCC projects have a design for a circuit like this. With home made DCC decoders, you have to be comfortable with programming microcontrollers, but there are already written softwares, you just have to upload the programs. The only thing important is to add direct feeders to each track, so you can power them constantly when running with DCC. In DC mode, you can leave them unconnected and use the power routing of the turnouts. If you plan to have block detection later, then you have to add blocks too.

 

So, my oppinion is to use blocks like in a DC system and add extra feeder wires behind power routing turnouts. This way the layout can later be wired for simple loop based DC, cab based DC, simple DCC and DCC with block detection, while the higher number of feeders help with voltage levels in all modes.

 

Should i buy the variation sets from KATO or just the turnouts?

Which is cheaper? If you would have too much leftover track from variation sets, then it's not a good idea, otherwise you can calculate the price with sets and with standalone pieces and choose the one that's better.

 

ps: The lack of passing sidings is and interesting choice, since this way you can't swap trains without backing in/out of a yard.

[katoftw]

If you are not gonna use the kato turnout switches, then i have found it is cheaper to buy seperately.

[IST]

Not to mention that variation sets have huge boxes, so the shipping cost can be much higher if you order those boxes.

[NJHA]

Yeap, i as warned about that already as i ordered a V6 set. But you can always ask if the shop can unpack the set and send just the contents. 

[Densha]

Which they usually won't do... at least that's what I heard from other members.