8x4 to 10x7 - Now what!.....

[fast_ian]

Well, XtrkCad has a couple of different Atlas libraries for H0 scale:

Atl code 83
Atl code 100
Atlas true track...

Indeed.

Further "investigation" revealed that RTS didn't (by default) load the library I wanted - Once I got that right, it did allow me to build my wyes - Almost, anyway - One connection needed "forcing", but not by much..... I then checked the part #'s in Xtrackcad, and the attached is the result..... Is it "close enough"? Or is that "out of tolerance"?

[Damn thing's still bigger than I was hoping! ]

Cheers,
Ian

 

[fast_ian]

[Damn thing's still bigger than I was hoping! ]

Got it squeezed in as shown - Min R=18" now of course..... Trouble is, I don't much like it

The wye itself will fit at top right - Trouble there is no tail tracks are possible!.....

Am I going down a blind alley wanting to do this?

Cheers,
Ian

 

[ianacole]

You could build the wye with two #4 or # 6 switches (one left and one right - at the bottom) and then a single wye (up top). This would allow the bottom of that section to run straight along the edge of the benchwork, pulling the wye down...

 

[fast_ian]

You could build the wye with two #4 or # 6 switches (one left and one right - at the bottom) and then a single wye (up top). This would allow the bottom of that section to run straight along the edge of the benchwork, pulling the wye down...

Indeed - Thanks - "Great minds etc etc"

I'm gazing at the attached & wishing I had more space.....

My question now becomes, is it worth it?

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Cjcrescent]

...
My question now becomes, is it worth it?

Cheers,
Ian

We can't answer that question for you Ian. Its your Railroad, not ours. You were lamenting the fact of no room for the tail track. How long do you need? Most wyes turned only engines and not whole trains. I have a wye on my layout whose tail track is barely long enough to hold a small 2-8-0. Since that is the loco that will be working the area, it needn't be any longer.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Is it possible to combine 2 loops with a crossover instead of a separate wye?

 

[steinjr]

Original reason you gave for including a wye was "This got me thinking I could get one in "somewhere" and thereby substantially increase "operating interest" (hopefully?)".

What was the "operating interest" you wanted to include?

Turning an engine? A small turntable takes less room than a wye. And steam engines can be backed up pulling or pushing cars, especially on a side spur where speed is kept down, even though they weren't normally run backwards a high speed for long journeys on the mainline.

What else did you want from your wye? Alternate routes through the layout? Do you have room to add more tracks without turning it into Spaghetti Junction, considering that you also want to have room for the slot(?) cars?

Most of us (very much including me) get carried away, and try to squeeze more and more. Whether adding a wye really is an enhancement depends on what your current goals are.

Smile,
Stein

 

[fast_ian]

Firstly, thanks again for the comments & Q's. Some answers (and probably more Q's) follow;

Original reason you gave for including a wye was "This got me thinking I could get one in "somewhere" and thereby substantially increase "operating interest" (hopefully?)".

What was the "operating interest" you wanted to include?

Turning an engine? A small turntable takes less room than a wye.

Turning engines certainly has its appeal and I would think (but this is why I'm asking!) would add a lot of "switching moves" - Making up (albeit little) trains and dropping off/picking up cars as I go is something I want to do. I'm also pretty sure that the majority of the time I'll be operating alone and only very occasionally with someone else. A steep grade and short passing sidings requiring "saw-by" moves and/or splitting the train to make the grade is another "approach" I've been bouncing around.

OTOH, I don't want to turn it into an unsolveable puzzle running in a spaghetti bowl - Which is what I think I'm getting close to with the wye...... A turntable could certainly do the trick, but space remains tight and I don't know if it's even warranted.

What else did you want from your wye? Alternate routes through the layout? Do you have room to add more tracks without turning it into Spaghetti Junction, considering that you also want to have room for the slot(?) cars?

Yep - Race cars (and the featured grade crossing at Gold Hill) remain one of the definite "givens". I don't think there's much room for alternate routes, unless a *lot* of it gets buried in tunnels, which I'm not sure about either.

Most of us (very much including me) get carried away, and try to squeeze more and more. Whether adding a wye really is an enhancement depends on what your current goals are.

+1 on the first part - I too must certainly plead guilty to that "trap"! In fact, looking at it more, I just don't like it - I don't like it parked right in the middle - I was just kinda thinking aloud, but think I've changed my mind, again.....

"Current goals" - Hmmm - FWIW, the prototype is a simple short line that doesn't have (today) any way to turn trains - One way they pull the tourists from Virginia City (the highest point, in my mind located at the top right) down to Carson City - Probably located in bottom left (where you had the depot originally!) Then they get pushed back up the hill.... However, there used to be a turntable (and a big shop) in Carson - Maybe that should be out in the "peninsula"?

Along the way, they pass thru Gold Hill, which IIRC actually has just a single siding in addition to the grade crossing - This could be expanded a little.

As noted before, we're set slightly in the future and gold & silver mining has made a comeback, warranting more trains moving "stuff" rather than simply passengers - Lumber going to the mine(s), ore coming out and going to a smelter - A possible armored "special" coming out hauling gold to Carson is another possibility. Regular freight service between the 3 main locations..... [Probably way too much squeezed in here of course!]

I have a little string of tiny ore cars for the mine - We need to grab those and transfer to real cars for the trip (?) is another idea.

While not a rivet counter, I want the three "main scenes" (V. City, Gold Hill and "the end of the line" (maybe down by the river rather than all the way to Carson?) to be "recognizable" - Most of my buddies are very familiar with the area and I know I can "suggest" these locations pretty well. [V.C. has a beautifully restored school & opera house, Gold Hill the crossing and the oldest hotel in Nevada. Mines & smelters still exist etc......

If V.C. stays at top right the car track will loop around the RR at top right - Main Street (F Street IIRC) can be suggested by flats behind the car track on the long wall at the back - This rises slightly while the RR descends before going in to a tunnel in order to "escape" from within the car track.

It's after that I don't know where to go next, but I have somewhat returned to your original idea! - I'm not even sure my "figure 8" version is any good any more I like that it runs *thru* rather than around the layout, but beyond that have (once again) gone to an almost blank computer screen.....

Thanks again for sticking with me on this!

Cheers,
Ian
PS - I'm now getting the hang of Xtrakcad! - On my version (Linux) it does occasionally "lose it's mind" (ability to connect tracks) - I've now pretty much concluded a restart (and regular saves) is the way to get it behaving again - Frustration level is receding quickly!

 

[DoubleDAZ]

PS - I'm now getting the hang of Xtrakcad! - On my version (Linux) it does occasionally "lose it's mind" (ability to connect tracks) - I've now pretty much concluded a restart (and regular saves) is the way to get it behaving again - Frustration level is receding quickly!

Before rebooting next time, try "Deselect All" from the Edit menu. I've found it loses it's mind too and even though I see no current tracks selected, etc., deselecting seems to put the program back in gear. YMMV, but if this works for you too, it's better than a reboot and you have nothing to lose by trying.

FWIW, I played around with the double-loop crossing thing I mentioned and while I think it works better than the wye, I agree you may be hitting the spaghetti level. Also, you mentioned you might use flextrack on straights, so I took that into consideration because the turnouts and crossing don't line up, but could still work with flextrack. I would also suggest that flextrack with some gentile curving will look better than simple straights. Anyway, here it is in case you didn't understand what I was talking about:

 

[fast_ian]

Before rebooting next time, try "Deselect All" from the Edit menu. I've found it loses it's mind too and even though I see no current tracks selected, etc., deselecting seems to put the program back in gear. YMMV, but if this works for you too, it's better than a reboot and you have nothing to lose by trying.

Good idea - Thanks. I'll certainly give it a go and report back. In fairness, now I'm getting used to it (making less mistakes?) it seems to be getting better.

FWIW, I played around with the double-loop crossing thing I mentioned and while I think it works better than the wye, I agree you may be hitting the spaghetti level. Also, you mentioned you might use flextrack on straights, so I took that into consideration because the turnouts and crossing don't line up, but could still work with flextrack. I would also suggest that flextrack with some gentile curving will look better than simple straights. Anyway, here it is in case you didn't understand what I was talking about:

Great stuff! - I *almost* got there, but backed out for reasons that now elude me...... For sure, it will ultimately be done with flex track but I've found using sectional keeps me a little more "honest" at this stage

I already have most of the track parts (albeit some need removing from the 4x8) - FWIW, this includes a beautiful Walthers "double x-over" - Gotta find a place for that! The only other "non-standard" part is a 22"/24" curved TO - I've got lots of straight ones, but the space savings using curves is really useful - As regularly seen in (Lord) Steins drawings!

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Cjcrescent]

Ian, Since you have stated some of what you want, I would definitely add a Turntable to each end of the layout. One at top and one at the bottom. There are many small turntables out there that would fit the bill, the simpliest being the Atlas turntable. These would only be used for turning the steamers anyway as if you use diesels they wouldn't need turning. They can run either way.

 

[fast_ian]

... I would definitely add a Turntable to each end of the layout. One at top and one at the bottom.

Hmmmm - Thanks. I appreciate the comment, but I think that may be a bit excessive - One I could handle, not sure about two......

Anyway, DoubleDAZ looping idea got me back to Xtrak. I also thought John Armstrong's "reverting loop" could work to turn 'em round, but that needs to be at an "end" of the mainline, and my "ends" are, in reality, next to each other (right now at least.....)

But, in messing around I came up with the attached bowl of spaghetti (!) - I'm not "feeling" how it would work, but figured I'd share it before it changes much more......

Cheers,
Ian

 

[fast_ian]

Having got the above lunacy out of my system, this is the next attempt - It's rough, I figure the straights really aren't straight and there's some sidings/run-arounds that need adding, but I reckon it's the best I've done so far.........

So, shoot me down in flames!

Cheers,
Ian

 

[DoubleDAZ]

I went back through this whole thread to refresh my memory. From what I gleaned, the turntable area is at 0", followed by the straight rising to 1", the loop and yard at 2", and the hidden track leading up to the end at 4". I believe there is at least a passing siding or small yard at the end, I assume the mining operation remains as shown in one of the posts. Is that still the plan?

If it is, here's how I see operations:

- go from the turntable to main yard
- back into yard to pick up oad of empty cars
- head to end to drop off cars
- switch empty cars for full cars on siding or small yard
- pick up full cars to take them back to the main yard (in reverse)
- drop off empties in yard.
- return to turntable to switch directions
- do it all over again

It's a long way for the engine from main yard to turntable, but it'll work. If there is a small yard at the turnable, all the better to haul a few cars on that leg, though the engine will be backward and steam won't look realistic at all. But hey, compromises have to be made, right?

I'm still having a hard time envisioning the placement of the race track, but if you think it will fit in, that's all that matters.

BTW, if you want to see some real spaghetti, check out XTrakCAD's example files. They are in XTrakCAD's Share folder.

 

[fast_ian]

I went back through this whole thread to refresh my memory.

Thanks for sticking with me here! - I really appreciate everyone's comments.

From what I gleaned, the turntable area is at 0", followed by the straight rising to 1", the loop and yard at 2", and the hidden track leading up to the end at 4". I believe there is at least a passing siding or small yard at the end, I assume the mining operation remains as shown in one of the posts. Is that still the plan?

Pretty much - But, I think this is the break thru comment - *Thanks!*;

...It's a long way for the engine from main yard to turntable, but it'll work....

Put the TT in this "newly discovered" main yard! Duh!.... OK, that puts it in the middle of the main line, but I reckon I could make a case for that - As you so rightly said, "compromises must be made!"

I'm still having a hard time envisioning the placement of the race track, but if you think it will fit in, that's all that matters.

As noted before, the flexibility with it, both in terms of radius & "climbing ability" is the stuff RR designers *dream* about...... I may be mistaken, but test layouts leave me confident it can be done - We'll see I guess.

BTW, if you want to see some real spaghetti, check out XTrakCAD's example files. They are in XTrakCAD's Share folder.

Going there next - Got a hockey game I wanna watch, but that sounds like fun.......

Thanks again for the comments,
Cheers
Ian

 

[DoubleDAZ]

As noted before, the flexibility with it, both in terms of radius & "climbing ability" is the stuff RR designers *dream* about...... I may be mistaken, but test layouts leave me confident it can be done - We'll see I guess.

I am eager to see the final product. I would love to be able to "marry" slots and trains on the same layout. It would be cool to model parts of the Circuit de Monaco (especially the casino, waterfront, tunnel) while having trains running alongside.

 

[fast_ian]

I am eager to see the final product.

Please don't hold your breath......

I would love to be able to "marry" slots and trains on the same layout. It would be cool to model..........<your choice here>

The purists will no doubt scoff - "HO slot cars" range between 1/64th and 1/72nd (with a few exceptions ). However, as long as the slot car isn't parked alongside the train, the brain adjusts..... Throw in a few static HO cars, and the problem is, I hope, mitigated......

The track itself scales to ~20' (~6m) wide in 1/87. Many turns need additional width on the outside so the cars can slide their rears eek, but I believe it can work.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[fast_ian]

...The track itself scales to ~20' (~6m) wide in 1/87

A few pix of the test track. At one time, it all worked!

 

[DoubleDAZ]

I think it will work too, but even if it doesn't, it's a great effort. I think most would deal with underpasses and overpasses rather than try to kludge a crossover track.

Oh, and I understand the comment about the different scales and that's probably why there aren't any crossover tracks already. It seems like it would be pretty easy to do for any slot car maker.

 

[fast_ian]

I think it will work too, but even if it doesn't, it's a great effort.

I get the feeling you're not convinced

I think most would deal with underpasses and overpasses rather than try to kludge a crossover track.

Kludge! "That ain't no stinkin' kludge!" All my (admittedly limited) stuff ran thru it just fine - Actually including a Thomas-the-Friggin'-Tank-Engine that I DCC'd! [He's actually a great test engine - If he can make it, I know my other stuff will be fine. His "eyes" contain the 2 brightest white LEDs I've ever seen! I also put in a roof light (to play with flashing functions) and a tail light..... Plus, when he takes the big fall it's no big deal!]

Oh, and I understand the comment about the different scales and that's probably why there aren't any crossover tracks already. It seems like it would be pretty easy to do for any slot car maker.

In small scale both Tyco & Aurora made 'em for a while - The one shown is Tyco, cut & joined to Aurora to match the track joiners - Worked a treat! The gates and their LED's are controlled by a Circuitron unit and I need to play with the distances of the 4 the photocells, but it does work!

Having said that, the crossing is code 100 and it was a bit of a game getting this straight track into the curved section shown - I have another one, but am thinking this may be my first venture into handlaid track . I have plenty of slot car track, so kludging something should be doable....

Incidentally, there are some slot car guys (trying? ) to do this in the larger scales for 1/32nd cars - Dunno which scale is closest to that, but the "standard" problem is the radius needed if you want to go beyond a simple "straight track thru the layout".

FWIW, some folks are building some beautiful car tracks these days - Here's a couple of pix.....