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

[IST]

1- Do you guys see any problem on either plan? something i missed, some disaster prone area, some error with operations?

2- Would you change anything? what?

3- Witch one do you prefer ?

 

3. I prefer the first one, it would give you more interesting train movements.

1. On the bottom of the plan where you connect the station to the main track it seems to me a little bit steep incline. You will have approximately 50-70 cm to reach the necessary height which is not enough. You should try it first, all of your trains can run on this incline.

The middle of the track seems a little bit confusing which track will go below or above of another track, but the idea is clear.

The X section can be dangerous when you running your trains, not to collide them there.

[NJHA]

Thanks IST. 

 

The bottom connection was hard to do, but i manage to get it with around 3% inclines. This is because line from the station is descending and the connecting line raises so they meet up at around 25mm height. This is not a optimal solution and i don't really know how it will be visually, but its the best i can come up with. 

 

As for the crossings, that is a minor flaw on the wintrack software. Each track color is a layer, and you set up the layer order but since i have 2 different layers crossing the software just mix it up. You can set one track above or below the other but only works correctly if the tracks are on the same layer. 

 

The x cross, that one is difficult and a potential problem if my kids get to play with the trains, have to take a deeper look into that one.  

[katoftw]

Guessing no Shinkansens with this layout?  Too many tight curves?

[NJHA]

Hi katoftw

 

Minimum curve radius is 315mm on the inner curves, 348 on the middle ones and 381 on the outer curves. There are 2 "lost" 282 mm curves but that is going to be fixed. So i guess  Shinkansens are a possibility even though they make more sense to me on plan 2. They will be limited to 7 car compositions though, as the station as no room for bigger trains, but that's not a problem for me, since i am not going prototypical. 

 

The station on plan 2 is elevated, so it can be the viaduct station. Also on plan 2 i have space to set up a tram line (independent from the train line) and make it pass under the station. On plan 1 that is also doable, but space is smaller. 

[katoftw]

when you say viaduct station.  do you mean all the rasied bits will be viaducts.  if so, then some of the track placement wont work as the pier will be in the way.  or if doing hills with tunnels, and viaducting (not a real word) in the middle of the station section, then that will work.

 

one thing i'd seriously consider is the space required to run the second loop with the x-over.  could the third loop be removed and some form of yards or sidings be put in place instead?

 

and i dont understand the point of the x-over in it's current place.  you'd have to moniter the speeds of the 2 trains as this causings both line to cross.

Edited August 8, 2014 by katoftw

[NJHA]

As for the viaducts still unsure on using them. Going the viaduct way means expensive track and additional problems with the piers. For now, i'm just considering raising the station and running lines below.

Also, not sure if i will use kato viaduct station (a lot of € for that one) or if i will build my own (considering on taking Mardon design, i have a lot of PVC pipes laying around). 

 

The x-over loop is a concern. It came up as a solution for several design constraints but i feel that one is kind of a ticking bomb, so i think i need to redesign that part of the track. My best bet i think would be going for a figure 8 main loop or maybe one "around the baseboard" loop, and then design a commuter/tram circuit at ground level. 

 

Decisions,decisions... 

[kvp]

I would replace the crossing with a double crossover switch. That would allow running trains crossed or on two separate loops.

[NJHA]

Hi kvp. 

 

The x cross is there due to the way the layout is done. If you notice, one of the lines goes to the station as expected, but the other line goes for another loop. I don't know if putting a crossover will solve the problem, i can look at it. I think the better approach for this is just the good old, "keep it simple! "

Edited August 9, 2014 by NJHA

[katoftw]

A crossover would turn it into a giant 3 lap loop with the ability to remove 1 lap.

 

I think you'd be right to keep it simple.  The orientation of the lines is fine. Maybe go back to simple first.  Design a 2 line/loop 1 lap track setup, then add more complex feature in once the basic 2 lines are sorted out.

 

I actually quite like the layout orientation.  And it has made me consider to start using 30 degree track pieces.

Edited August 9, 2014 by katoftw

[kvp]

 

A crossover would turn it into a giant 3 lap loop with the ability to remove 1 lap.

Or you can set it to crossed on both lines, which will result in the original configuration of two separate loops crossing each other. One is safe for running trains, the other is the original idea.

 

On the other hand, i think it's always best to design a layout for the desired operation, so the tracks let the trains go where the designed wants them to go with exactly as much trouble as the designer wanted. Usually this means the layout makes it hard for trains to collide but if the idea is to make it hard to operate the layout, then adding a few crossovers is a good thing. If you want to avoid that, then you can always go under/above the other rail. Adding a train underpass to the layout above would be relatively easy and that would make it 3 levels (underpass, surface, elevated).

[NJHA]

Or you can set it to crossed on both lines, which will result in the original configuration of two separate loops crossing each other. One is safe for running trains, the other is the original idea.

 

On the other hand, i think it's always best to design a layout for the desired operation, so the tracks let the trains go where the designed wants them to go with exactly as much trouble as the designer wanted. Usually this means the layout makes it hard for trains to collide but if the idea is to make it hard to operate the layout, then adding a few crossovers is a good thing. If you want to avoid that, then you can always go under/above the other rail. Adding a train underpass to the layout above would be relatively easy and that would make it 3 levels (underpass, surface, elevated).

 

I don't know if the underpass is possible without going to insane grades (5% or higher). Like i said plan n2 was a "I surrender" plan, i just wanted to get the station on it. Now that its ready and viable I can look at it and see what can be improved. Plan 1 gives extra operation but with kids that may be a problem and makes adding a tram line not that easy or linear. 

These past few days i have been busy (went with wife to IKEA... furniture assembly time) so not that much time to dedicate to the plan. Hopefully i can get some free time later and test all your ideas (and a few of my own). I will be in touch. 

[NJHA]

I am back. 

Had some free time and took a deeper look at the plan. 

 

1) Underpass is not an option. To make the underpass grades would be over 4% and that's not a grade i want to take. 

2) Crossover switch is a possible solution and works but the collision issue is still present.

 

Like i said i planned to test a few ideas and reworked the plan a bit. I am happy with it, all grades are low and i have space for 2 things:

a ) a tram circuit.

b ) a future storage area.

 

Here it is:

 

 

The numbers on the track are heights. 

 

Comments please :)

[Densha]

Why is the blue track on the lower left not parallel with the green track? I don't see any logic behind that. Because of that shape you also have more chance your trains will derail as just literally happened a few minutes back with a strange S-curve I have in my temporary loop.

[cteno4]

NJHA,

 

Looks good and clean, with as you noted plenty of space to add trams, storage, buildings and scenery. Good to keep the grades low. Station in the center is a nice focal point.

 

I agree with densha on the extra curve out there in the hidden area, keep it clean in all hidden areas. I could see the bump out being something to break up totally parallel track in a viewed area, but being hidden there its asking for trouble.

 

Jeff

[NJHA]

Why is the blue track on the lower left not parallel with the green track? I don't see any logic behind that. Because of that shape you also have more chance your trains will derail as just literally happened a few minutes back with a strange S-curve I have in my temporary loop.

 

Well, the blue track is not parallel because the last curves on the green track are 381mm curves. With 348mm curves i may get alignment issues (at least the software says that, but i can always try it, as i don't really know about the software precision) 

[Densha]

If you follow the geometry it should be possible. Do you have a plan with the item numbers?

[NJHA]

If you follow the geometry it should be possible. Do you have a plan with the item numbers?

 

Solved it! :) just had to push the blue end loop back. Still not parallel, but the S curve is gone. 

As for the plan with the item numbers, here it is: 

 

[Densha]

The parallel track to the blue track we were talking about: the green track there is made of both R348 and R381. The outer track for R348 is R381, for R381 it's R414 which is only available as those canted double-track concrete curves.

Also, because of the alignment of straight tracks you can't make exactly parallel now.

 

Looking carefully at the rail joints, it looks like almost nothing is aligned correctly in your plan. That may have to do with the diagonal parts that mess up the geometry and with that you didn't use 1 type of radius in your curves but mixed several radiusses.

 

The horror of rail geometry. D:

Edited August 13, 2014 by Densha

[NJHA]

Looking carefully at the rail joints, it looks like almost nothing is aligned correctly in your plan. That may have to do with the diagonal parts that mess up the geometry and with that you didn't use 1 type of radius in your curves but mixed several radiusses.

 

The horror of rail geometry. D:

 

It's not the diagonal that messes up the geometry, it's just me, but then again, i am just like that... messed up  

The rail joints are a funny thing though. They seem unaligned and i have redone the plan several times due to this, but i came up to the conclusion that its a software/library/visual issue.

I am going to redo the layout on scarm just to be sure though.

[kvp]

Try to align the curves separately with temporaray double track sections on both ends. Then you can add the straight ones between them. If you want overhead masts, then you have to align everything properly so the mast bases could be added. Try to add the diagonal station section as the last step and even there, try to work from the middle out, so all 4 tracks are aligned. If you don't want to use double track pieces, then you can remove them after everything is aligned and replace them with their single track equivalents.

[NJHA]

Just checked with scarm. Like i was expecting the unaligned tracks are just a visual error, although the blue line is, in fact, a few millimeters short (4,2 mm, within the 5mm tolerance that wintrack gives).

 

So, i guess this part is done. Now i just need to design a tram line, build the bench and wait around 2 and a half months for the tracks to arrive to my house (half month is the trip from Japan to Portugal, the rest is time in customs)

[NJHA]

The parallel track to the blue track we were talking about: the green track there is made of both R348 and R381. The outer track for R348 is R381, for R381 it's R414 which is only available as those canted double-track concrete curves.

 

 

 

Try to align the curves separately with temporaray double track sections on both ends.

 

Well, tried your approach and this is what i came up with:

 

 

Seems ok, there is the small alignment problem but those are mm, so its fixable. 

What do you think? I never used canted tracks before, don't really know how they work, but that curve is going from ground level to +50mm level. Should i expect any kind of problem or it will be fine? I didn't forget the approach tracks for each side of the curve. 

 

Explaining the colors: 

- Salmon(?) - access to station, lines going to +50mm or coming from +50 mm

- Blue - Ground level lines

-Green - Below ground level lines (-50mm)

[Densha]

Looks very clean now. :) I'm not sure if R315 is enough for trains with longer cars like Shinkansen, but I'm sure the unitrack experts know more about that. ;) Also the four 'blue' tracks meeting up at the bottom seem very close. Maybe it's just enough space but I wonder if the train from the outer curved track would bump onto the train on the inner straight track.

[katoftw]

R315 is fine for Shinkansens.  You just have to run them at speeds likable for R315 curves and not get full use from the 414/381 canted curves.

 

Also, canted PC curves are double track.  So I'd suggest replacing all (or some to your liking) of the S248 parrallel track sections with WS248PC.  Also comes in WS186PC, WS124PC, WS62PC and a S248PC if you fell like getting creative.

Edited August 16, 2014 by katoftw

[NJHA]

R315 is fine for Shinkansens.  You just have to run them at speeds likable for R315 curves and not get full use from the 414/381 canted curves.

 

Also, canted PC curves are double track.  So I'd suggest replacing all (or some to your liking) of the S248 parrallel track sections with WS248PC.  Also comes in WS186PC, WS124PC, WS62PC and a S248PC if you fell like getting creative.

 

No more creativity here! That is the final layout, already ordered the track (but ordered some 248mm double track). 

It will take around 10 to 15 days to arrive to Portugal and then around two more months if customs select the package for inspection. Portuguese customs waiting times are insane.

I am going to start working on the bench, i already figured a way to do the 3 levels i need. I will be using insulation foam boards (3cm thick) instead of plywood boards. Main reason being the plywood boards price. (1 plywood board 240cm*120cm*15mm = 64€! , 1 insulation foam board 260cm*60cm*30mm = 6€ )

Edited August 23, 2014 by NJHA