Help needed - "Dad can we have bridges and tunnels?" UppyDownyRoundyRoundy Railway

[NedFlanders]

Hi all,

So there I was, planning a small n gauge layout for my winter project as a first foray in n gauge when the "Small Controller" uttered the fateful words - "Dad, can we have bridges and a tunnel?"….. on his TrakMat Board (No). 

With my extremely limited design skills this is the best I have come up with  - yellow is the lower level, green the upper level and the diagonal has the inclines and a loop on either line when going up hill  – I wanted to give him an UppyDownyRoundyRoundy as I have christened it.....  this way there are bridges and tunnels and a grand long stretch for the trains to have a run on. ( much reading of CJ Freezer plan books in my youth are the inspiration here) 



The Budget requires that I must reuse as much of the Trakmat that he currently has ( a welcome present from a grandfather that was supplemented by my old layout) and as much of my stock of peco medium turnouts and flexible track on an aborted OO layout from nearly 20 years ago......... So some of the plan elements are down to the fact that I have these turnouts. 



Now that I have this rough plan done ( and many, many, many previous even more terrible attempts) I think that the max train length ( Flying Scotsman and four coaches) and a 1:30 up and down incline on the diagonal can be accommodated.  I feel I am now at the stage to start building the boards and trying the fit of the turnouts etc on a lower level only and then once I have that sorted I can then look at putting in inclines and the upper level, I.e. on the initial build the diagonal will just have a double track circuit. 

I would really appreciate any suggestions on the layout for the industrial areas – I did a mockup on the lower level but I am not sure if that would work in any way.  My idea is that the upper industrial area is related in someway to the lower industrial area – Mine to Docks, that sort of thing.  a "small train" is shunted – brought out to the main line delivered to the other industrial area and then the empties returned.  I think the lower level passenger station will have a platform for each main line and the upper level will have an Island platform so that they are not identical.  It is intentional that the industrial/yard areas are both on the same line so that the other main line can have passenger trains circling when the industrial trains are moving. 

I think I will fit a loop on the upper level station on the loco depot side to allow for a train/rake of coaches to be left there – the loco to go to the loco area and a replacement one to come back out and take the train either back out on the original circuit or bring it over to the other line courtesy of a crossover ( not currently on the plan ) I.e. some play value involving the turntable.  I will also put a crossover in on the lower level to allow for transferring trains from one main line to the other if needed. 

The Baseboards have a maximum L shape of 8X9 and I have gone for a 2ft wide board.  Although the diagonal looks like it could be narrower to give more space for the humans in the operating well. 

So, all advice, comments, critiques welcome – I know from looking at other peoples designs I have very little drafting skills..... Play value is definitely more important than realism here - I'm envisaging that the tracks "over" the lower level station will be on the equivalent of an elevated railway girder structure to give him some of his bridges for example....
 
Thanks,

Jason.

[End2end]

My idea is that the upper industrial area is related in some way to the lower industrial area – Mine to Docks, that sort of thing.

What about mine to canal? This would give scope for another bridge or tunnel albeit more scaled down than a larger docks scene.
Thanks
End2end

[SRman]

The track plan looks interesting, but I can't work out what happens to the low level (yellow ) inner track at the upper right, where the low level and high levels cross over. If the low level one joins the high level track there, the gradient to carry the high level over the next track would be impossible. Or does the low level one continue underneath, to pop out somewhere else?

[NedFlanders]

The track plan looks interesting, but I can't work out what happens to the low level (yellow ) inner track at the upper right, where the low level and high levels cross over. If the low level one joins the high level track there, the gradient to carry the high level over the next track would be impossible. Or does the low level one continue underneath, to pop out somewhere else?

The plan is that the yellow lines at the top right would be as close to the baseboard edge as practical once I do some real tracklaying and the Green line " above" it would cross it at the earliest point. The Top three lines on the diagonal boards would be increasing at a 1:30 gradient going from left to right as soon as it clears the upper station on the left in order to clear the yellow lines at the top right. Does that make sense?

I'm going to have a go at the Gradients in SCARM later which will hopefully make better sense, especially in the 3D view.

Thanks for your interest

[NedFlanders]

After another bit of fettling I have duplicated the lower industrial yard on the upper level ( loop, siding and headshunt length) but as the upper level will have an Island Platform I have added it so that the entry to the run around loop is in the middle of it so that its not just a mirror image. As I look at it I will lengthen the second siding in each so that they are both the length of the loop so that one train can be brought in, run around if needed and then put into an empty siding and then a rake from the other siding taken out...... and so on.

I've also added in a loop at the upper station to allow a rake to be stabled while its loco is being serviced in the yard or to give another passing loop. Crossovers have been added at both Staions

Its starting to come together in my minds eye, if nothing else. I will be running it past the Railway Authorities soon to see what t(he)y think.

I have put in the slopes now ( purple going up from left to right and Red going up from right to left) - I discovered that Scarm can't seem to handle a point on a slope so I removed them but left them ( circled) next to where they should be. I've also indicated where the lower lines ( yellow) in the top right should be closer to the edge of the board. I have an idea on changing the setup of the loops on the Diagonal board to accommodate that.

So here it is - what do you all think? There are a few curved points and radius 1 in the industrial yards , however I have previously added an extra curved settrack point to the trakmat to ease a crossover and all the derailments went away so I'm hoping with reductions in the max speed of locos with DCC and careful track laying we should have the same results here - it will be predominantly a Hornby "Railroad" layout so fingers crossed that they might behave.

[Emettman]

On gradients, 4 coaches on 1:30 is an ask, even more so if some or all of the gradient needs to be on a curve.

To get 3" climb in 1:30 needs about 10'
(minimal clearance will help)
What adds length to the simple calculation figure is the need to have a vertical transition curve at each end of the gradient.
As a rule of thumb I add 1ft to each end of the projected length, so that the first and last 2ft provide the climb expected of each ft of the rest of the incline. 2ft to go from level to full gradient.
Experiment might show that a less er allowance would still work. Long locos tend to be the most critical.

A divided gradient saves length, coming down to about 6 or 7 ft to obtain crossover clearance, setting up a part of the layout at "half-height" where there isn't clearance to go over or under it without extra gradients.

[Emettman]

Can I ask if for double-track mainline curves you are using 2nd + 3rd radius, or having 3rd + 4th as a minimum.

I have a few idea, but need to know what counts as "too tight" by your rules.

It will be a few days, as I'm having to work slowly.

Chris.

[SRman]

That last diagram clarifies things considerably. where there is now a red line coming out from under a purple one, previously it looked like it was a point on the same level (with both tracks having been coloured in green). It all makes sense to me now.

[b308]

It's a nice plan, but I would say that it's also very ambitious! The trackbeds for those gradients will take some careful working out. I'd suggest that you start by laying the mainline, work from the bottom up, putting the points for the sidings in but not the sidings. Then make sure it works OK. After that start to develop the sidings and locoshed areas. Don't dive in with both feet and try to do the whole lot in one go, that's a recipe for trouble.

[NedFlanders]

Thanks everyone for your input,

I have gone with radius 2 and 3 on the mainlines, although based on the feedback I think that could well end up as being 3 and 4 on the gradients where that is necessary.

I may also look to push the start of the downward incline from the lower left as far back as I can towards the upper station by pushing the curve out as far to the edge as I can ( see blue arrow).

But this might then mitigate against REV 104 - Where I have moved the turntable to have more of the elevated railway above the lower station instead of hard landscaped. Heres an indication of what I mean



and here it is in 3D.



The more I look/read on the gradients I think I am at the stage where I have to start cutting timber...... Its the max area I can use for the baseboards so there's no reason that I can think to not start getting some foundations in place. once I have the lower level station roughly pinned in place with a circuit around the other boards that should keep the small controller happy while I shuffle a couple of Gradient tests along the Diagonal. Once I see what can be achieved there I can then look at fitting in the "wished for" features on the upper station.

[b308]

Good plan and make the curves on the gradients as wide as possible.

[End2end]

Don't forget to leave access especially on any track covered by the upper level for track cleaning and also any derailments or other maintenance.
Thanks
End2end

[NedFlanders]

Aha!

There was something rattling around in thd back of my head about the gradients, it finally came back to me .... the dcc concepts powerbase.

https://www.dccconcepts.com/product-cat ... powerbase/

Theres a number of videos etc. out there, and while theres no substitute for a shallow gradient where possible it looks like this will help in our available space.
There was one involving a hornby duchess which shows what a differnce it might make

https://youtu.be/qx20J1tJ8Tg

One to definitly test.

J.

[Dragonfly]

Solely because nobody else has suggested this yet (unless I've just not seen, in which case I apologise, I am very attention deficient)...
Have you considered just having two entirely separate sub-layouts on two levels, and get rid of the gradients?
They don't NEED to be connected to one another. You can have entire rabbit-warren type layouts on multiple levels, if you so wished, with lots of bridges and tunnels, without the need for gradients.

[End2end]

The DCConcepts site states "If you use PowerBase you will also need to spend less time track-cleaning"
I looked across the site and some of thier videos including the installation video but cannot find proof of this or how it's kept cleaner anywhere.
Sounds like marketing spiel to me.
Not saying it doesn't work for what it is suposed to do and looks vey impressive especially with 14 coaches but that statement sounds like organic farm floor covering to me.
Maybe it works like the old relco ones. Obliterating dirt rather than keeping it clean? Or just squashing track dirt by attracting the magnet laden loco stronger to the track? Or perhaps thier way of laying track using meths?
Does anyone know the basis of this statement?
Thanks
End2end