Sarah Winfield
Registered
Which layout would members prefer please?
- Thread starter Sarah Winfield
- Start date
G-force1
Prevarication Rules!
Sarah, you ask the impossible. Your layout should reflect what you want it to do for YOU. You should ask what it is you prefer to see, is it just a train passing now and again, or do you want to shunt stock and take it from A to B (by as many laps as you wish). Do you want to run to a timetable etc. etc. Remember rule 8.
MTheStrong
Registered
Totally agree
Sarah Winfield
Registered
but as the advert says "I just don't know!".
It's good that I don't have a permanent layout. I'm too easily swayed. I wish I weren't.
SW
It's good that I don't have a permanent layout. I'm too easily swayed. I wish I weren't.
SW
trammayo
Interested in vintage commercial vehicle, trams, t
My layout at the moment comprises 10 or 12' straights with 90 and 180 bends.
However what are members thoughts on something like this please?
G
Thank you,
SW
Hi Sarah - even the ebay linked item comprises R1 curves, etc. To me, there is nothing wrong with what you have done already. My trailer layout is comprised of R1 curves and points (plus straights of course) and I run Bachmann Big Haulers and their coaches for up to seven hours continuous with up to four loco on the track. I'm totally analogue - I can control speed, or shut power off to certain track sections.
There's a 100ft of track on the layout with nine points. Whilst it doesn't suit the purist, onlookers certainly like it.
As G-force1 says, it's your line - so don't alter things because of other people's opinions. If we were all the same there would be a high degree of monotony on here.
Brixham
No buffers were hurt at this sign
That's the beauty of sectional track, you can lay it out, run it, and if you don't like it, change the layout. And if you did like it, and then made changes, you can restore it to how it was. Most layouts start out in one fashion, then evolve with experience. If parts of the layout are never used, then maybe a rethink.
A good layout is one that combines continual running, with a terminus to terminus. If the mood takes you, you can operate a proper branch line. Or when it's 'too difficult', revert to roundy roundy!
Malcolm
A good layout is one that combines continual running, with a terminus to terminus. If the mood takes you, you can operate a proper branch line. Or when it's 'too difficult', revert to roundy roundy!
Malcolm
As others have said..
By all means, get others ideas, but it is your railway, and you have to decide (eventually, maybe not yet) what sort of railway you want, and how you will run it..
My two-penneth:
If you can, have at least one 'circuit'.. - For when you just want a loco to keep you company, whilst you potter (or sit) in the garden.
If this can disappear, and re-appear, so much the better.
Perhaps a higher-level 'shuttle'. - Even better if the delay can be slightly random, and is quite long..
The 'Oh, there it is' factor comes into this.
From there on.. The sky (and your budget!) is the limit.
Above all, run 'something'.. Slowly, a germ of aan idea will form, and your railway will take on a character to suit how you want it to evolve.
Most of all.... Enjoy!
By all means, get others ideas, but it is your railway, and you have to decide (eventually, maybe not yet) what sort of railway you want, and how you will run it..
My two-penneth:
If you can, have at least one 'circuit'.. - For when you just want a loco to keep you company, whilst you potter (or sit) in the garden.
If this can disappear, and re-appear, so much the better.
Perhaps a higher-level 'shuttle'. - Even better if the delay can be slightly random, and is quite long..
The 'Oh, there it is' factor comes into this.
From there on.. The sky (and your budget!) is the limit.
Above all, run 'something'.. Slowly, a germ of aan idea will form, and your railway will take on a character to suit how you want it to evolve.
Most of all.... Enjoy!
LGB-Sid
Registered
Mine started with a basic oval to get things running and then it just got bits added as and when I bought the track, It got changed quite a bit from the way it was drawn on paper either because it didn't really work or because I just changed my mind when i saw it in the garden . mine runs basically now as an end to end line with a return loop at one end and a future second at the other end (one day).
. mine runs basically now as an end to end line with a return loop at one end and a future second at the other end (one day).
ARIA31
Registered
I like very much the railroad circuit that you shown. I even considered to start with such one when I started this hobby.
It is well suited for short rolling stock like the Stainz that you have.
Now I am quite close to what Trammayo is having (Analog , R1 and Bachmann big haulers) but for other reasons I have something different. Basically it is a one direction loop.
As it is said by others I am always modifying the circuit , mainly adding new railroad, despite I considered recently I reached the maximum railroad I am willing to have !!
It is well suited for short rolling stock like the Stainz that you have.
Now I am quite close to what Trammayo is having (Analog , R1 and Bachmann big haulers) but for other reasons I have something different. Basically it is a one direction loop.
As it is said by others I am always modifying the circuit , mainly adding new railroad, despite I considered recently I reached the maximum railroad I am willing to have !!
JimmyB
Now retired - trains and fishing
Its okay (IMHO) to borrow ideas from other people some of use (me) do not have sufficient imagination to plan a railway (on paper), though when we produce something we know if we like it or not. If you continue with DCC you will be able to run multiple train (on your own), however if you are using DC or R/C then running more than one train can be difficult - so know your limitations, and plan for them plus a little!
Sean.
Hmmmm
First question Sarah
After playing with track/dcc and the small and irritating glitches , is this track plan doable in your mind ..or is it going to be too much ?
If your ok with it , do it as drawn , use it them , make adjustment to your liking/skill.. It is Your yard/layout .. It's suppose to be fun ...
After playing with track/dcc and the small and irritating glitches , is this track plan doable in your mind ..or is it going to be too much ?
If your ok with it , do it as drawn , use it them , make adjustment to your liking/skill.. It is Your yard/layout .. It's suppose to be fun ...
JimmyB
Now retired - trains and fishing
Bottom line - It is supposed to be FUNIt is Your yard/layout .. It's suppose to be fun ...
G-force1
Prevarication Rules!
To try to aid Sarah's problem, some thoughts on railways.
In the end there are only so many things you can do with track. The very simplest (and probably most boring for many) is a straight line, Out and Back. It still has it's place. Real railways did just that, but usually with a few curvy bits in-between. They existed to take goods/people from one place to another, a goodly distance away, and Shuttle devices are made to allow us to do it automatically (electrically) if we wish. There is our first problem; a good distance, we usually don't have. The solution to that is to join both ends together to form a loop (roundy-roundy), this didn't often happen in full size with at least a couple of notable exceptions, part of the London Underground (Circle Line), and the Potteries Loop Line (if you haven't heard of that one, look it up).
Loops and Out-and-Backs can twist and turn, and go up and down, and over or under, so can be extended to give the impression of greater distances, and give a greater variety. Variety can also be added by inserting points (turnouts) into the line at suitable places to allow alternate routes, or two trains to pass/overtake. These can either re-join at another part of the circuit(?) or just go to a third (4th-5th) place/terminus.
Another alternative is the one that I'm stuck with, a balloon loop. This is effectively the same as Out-and-Back except the there is only the one place for 'Out' and 'Back', it always returns to the same place and facing the wrong way, so needs at least a run-round loop in the Terminus. I've made the best of that in that the point (turnout) where it leaves and returns to the 'string' is left as trailed so that at least an Up train goes one way round the loop and a Down train the other, for variety.
Anything else is basically a variation of anything above, so it still boils down to what you want from your railway. I personally would love some of the benefits of a roundy-roundy, but the topography precludes it (except if very small; and I like long trains).
P.S. the diag. at the top doesn't suit me for one reason. Trains cannot leave one terminus and enter the other without reversing.
In the end there are only so many things you can do with track. The very simplest (and probably most boring for many) is a straight line, Out and Back. It still has it's place. Real railways did just that, but usually with a few curvy bits in-between. They existed to take goods/people from one place to another, a goodly distance away, and Shuttle devices are made to allow us to do it automatically (electrically) if we wish. There is our first problem; a good distance, we usually don't have. The solution to that is to join both ends together to form a loop (roundy-roundy), this didn't often happen in full size with at least a couple of notable exceptions, part of the London Underground (Circle Line), and the Potteries Loop Line (if you haven't heard of that one, look it up).
Loops and Out-and-Backs can twist and turn, and go up and down, and over or under, so can be extended to give the impression of greater distances, and give a greater variety. Variety can also be added by inserting points (turnouts) into the line at suitable places to allow alternate routes, or two trains to pass/overtake. These can either re-join at another part of the circuit(?) or just go to a third (4th-5th) place/terminus.
Another alternative is the one that I'm stuck with, a balloon loop. This is effectively the same as Out-and-Back except the there is only the one place for 'Out' and 'Back', it always returns to the same place and facing the wrong way, so needs at least a run-round loop in the Terminus. I've made the best of that in that the point (turnout) where it leaves and returns to the 'string' is left as trailed so that at least an Up train goes one way round the loop and a Down train the other, for variety.
Anything else is basically a variation of anything above, so it still boils down to what you want from your railway. I personally would love some of the benefits of a roundy-roundy, but the topography precludes it (except if very small; and I like long trains).
P.S. the diag. at the top doesn't suit me for one reason. Trains cannot leave one terminus and enter the other without reversing.
Gizzy
A gentleman, a scholar, and a railway modeller....
Similar to myself, except I've added a spur to my loop to give me a 'roundy-roundy' run.
In fact, my loop is double track, so I can have a train on either loop running in opposite directions.
Both loops are connected to and from the terminus, so I can have a train running back to there, whilst another heads away from there to the loop.
Yes, it's complex, but then I'm not known as the Junction Junkie for nothing....
G-force1
Prevarication Rules!
Similar to myself, except I've added a spur to my loop to give me a 'roundy-roundy' run.
In fact, my loop is double track, so I can have a train on either loop running in opposite directions.
Both loops are connected to and from the terminus, so I can have a train running back to there, whilst another heads away from there to the loop.
Yes, it's complex, but then I'm not known as the Junction Junkie for nothing....
What I would probably call a closed balloon loop. You can go as many times round the loop as you wish giving that benefit back. There is also similar with a figure-of-eight track (closed) which is what we have when I play bigger trains on Sundays. Variations on a theme.
ARIA31
Registered
May I suggest , If you are looking for new layouts to choose the one which will meet your expectations, you can look at the following links
on champex-linden.de - Downloads
at the bottom see
http://www.champex-linden.de/download_fremddokumente/lgb_gleisanlagen_und_technik_1-52.pdf
and other similar part of the complete LGB documents : gleisanlagen_und_technik - 252 pages
Don't need to read german, drawings are sufficient ....
on champex-linden.de - Downloads
at the bottom see
http://www.champex-linden.de/download_fremddokumente/lgb_gleisanlagen_und_technik_1-52.pdf
and other similar part of the complete LGB documents : gleisanlagen_und_technik - 252 pages
Don't need to read german, drawings are sufficient ....
wandgrudd
Registered
I would say it’s a good starting point, as it can be done in stages as and when funds and time allow, i.e. the outer loop first then then inner passing loop, then one set of sidings etc.
Remember the best bit about G scale is the track is generally very robust and can be moved and altered many many times without departmental effect on its performance unlike the smaller scales.
In the 15+ years I have been fully outside other than the station area my line is unrecognizable from what I started with.
Remember the best bit about G scale is the track is generally very robust and can be moved and altered many many times without departmental effect on its performance unlike the smaller scales.
In the 15+ years I have been fully outside other than the station area my line is unrecognizable from what I started with.
Greg Elmassian
Guest
I always go back to basics when confronted with a complex decision.
Sarah, you had issues with spending the money for an autoreverser. Then you had many questions about if you needed 1 or 2 insulators on the "reversing loop" section. Then there were lots of questions on using a DPDT switch to manually reverse these sections. Then you reported one reversing section worked, but not the almost identical other one. Later, apparently, neither reversing loop worked.
So, back to basics... are you going to continue with track power? If so, then decide if you are staying with DCC or not. Then if you are staying with DCC, get a decent power booster and then you can determine if you can handle insulated sections, and reversing loop electrics.
If no to any of the above, then make the decision to give up track power entirely, please.
Why this long diatribe? Because you have shown a layout with a "reversing loop".
I won't enter the track power vs. DCC vs. remote control controversy, but none of them is completely trouble free... you trade one set of potential problems for another. Which set of problems is larger is the debate.
But, at this juncture, given all the history, I would say go R/C, and then your track plan can be anything you want, and you don't have to worry about conductivity, reverse loops, power feeds, a booster for your underpowered (for G scale) DCC system, etc. etc.
With all that said, I think the plan you show has too many mainline switches to start, given the difficulty you have communicated with switches... so I would build this in stages:
1. leave out the two "switchyards", put in only the folded dogbone.
2. Add the 2 switches for the "reversing loop"
3. Add your switchyards
Since you indicate sectional track, this will be easy to do, and allow you to "debug" problems bit by bit, as opposed to too many things wrong at one time.
Regards, Greg
Sarah, you had issues with spending the money for an autoreverser. Then you had many questions about if you needed 1 or 2 insulators on the "reversing loop" section. Then there were lots of questions on using a DPDT switch to manually reverse these sections. Then you reported one reversing section worked, but not the almost identical other one. Later, apparently, neither reversing loop worked.
So, back to basics... are you going to continue with track power? If so, then decide if you are staying with DCC or not. Then if you are staying with DCC, get a decent power booster and then you can determine if you can handle insulated sections, and reversing loop electrics.
If no to any of the above, then make the decision to give up track power entirely, please.
Why this long diatribe? Because you have shown a layout with a "reversing loop".
I won't enter the track power vs. DCC vs. remote control controversy, but none of them is completely trouble free... you trade one set of potential problems for another. Which set of problems is larger is the debate.
But, at this juncture, given all the history, I would say go R/C, and then your track plan can be anything you want, and you don't have to worry about conductivity, reverse loops, power feeds, a booster for your underpowered (for G scale) DCC system, etc. etc.
With all that said, I think the plan you show has too many mainline switches to start, given the difficulty you have communicated with switches... so I would build this in stages:
1. leave out the two "switchyards", put in only the folded dogbone.
2. Add the 2 switches for the "reversing loop"
3. Add your switchyards
Since you indicate sectional track, this will be easy to do, and allow you to "debug" problems bit by bit, as opposed to too many things wrong at one time.
Regards, Greg
Rhinochugger
Retired Oik
Rhinochugger
Retired Oik
I think I like itMy layout at the moment comprises 10 or 12' straights with 90 and 180 bends.
However what are members thoughts on something like this please?
Thank you,
SW
I think it will do what you want it to do in your garden
So, I think it's a good'un
