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

[Motley]

Holy cow batman, that looks awesome! I'm referring to the latest pics of the race track. That is killer looking!

 

[fast_ian]

Holy cow batman, that looks awesome! I'm referring to the latest pics of the race track. That is killer looking!

Isn't it!.... The guys got a blog and a ton more pix here if anyone's interested:

http://wlf1ring.blogspot.com/

Slot cars have come a *long* way in the past few years - Current best-practice (in the larger scales, not in this project) is to CNC route the slots with differing lane spacing (seen above) so passing is only possible "where it makes sense".

They're also "going digital" - Scalextric now have electronic "lane changers" controlled by the driver so you can develop a "racing line" etc - Very cool stuff!

Every now and again someone (typically from model RR land of course) suggests doing it with DCC, and it *should* work, but I haven't seen any success stories....... Another "kludge" at best

Cheers,
Ian

 

[fast_ian]

It's back!......

After much deliberation, reading & pondering - A lot of it prompted by posts here of course, I came up with a "plan B".....

The prototype (the V&T RR to save you looking) runs basically downhill from Virginia City (where there used to be a TT and maintenance facilities) , thru Gold Hill and down to the Carson River. [If anyone's interested, one of the best research sites I found is run by a guy in Sweden! - http://www.virginiaandtruckee.com/ ]

So - I moved Gold Hill to the top right. The top track goes uphill to V.C. and the lower down to the river/smelter/mine/something......

Then Xtrak "intervened"!..... I *cannot* make the runaround track "implied" in Gold Hill connect! [The double xover, while not connected here is a real Shinohara part on 2" centers and "about" that long btw.]

I also got frustrated at the V.C (TT) "end" so would really appreciate any help! [I'm not even "committed" to having the TT in the corner as shown....]

[To hopefully "ease" said assistance I've also attached a zip of the xtc file if anyones interested in playing around ]

TIA, cheers,
Ian
EDIT - The tunnel is also "wrong" - Going uphill should probably be more "open", and downhill in a tunnel or two (I think?)

 

[fast_ian]

...would really appreciate any help!

I guess I'm on my own here then. ~200 more views and zero comments

Have I somehow pissed folk off?...... Even when I try and answer a Q it doesn't seem to elicit any response.

May be time to move on. Guess I'll try the guys on the Yahoo LDsig.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[DoubleDAZ]

I wish I had the expertise to even begin to help. I did try opening the zip file and Windows wouldn't let me, not sure what the problem is. I've had some trouble with getting runarounds to connect too, but eventually I'm able to get them done. I usually have to start at the turnout curves and work toward the center to see what the problem is.

 

[steinjr]

I guess I'm on my own here then. ~200 more views and zero comments

Have I somehow pissed folk off?...... Even when I try and answer a Q it doesn't seem to elicit any response.

May be time to move on. Guess I'll try the guys on the Yahoo LDsig.

Cheers,
Ian

Hi Ian --

I had a look at your latest track plan - main line seems to be Y shaped, with a very short common stem, some weird crossovers and a not functional runaround (since there is no room for an engine on the right end of it).

No indication of how the thing is supposed to work as a whole.

What exactly are you expecting people to do for you?

Smile,
Stein

 

[fast_ian]

I wish I had the expertise to even begin to help.

No problem! Appreciate the response!

I did try opening the zip file and Windows wouldn't let me, not sure what the problem is. I've had some trouble with getting runarounds to connect too, but eventually I'm able to get them done. I usually have to start at the turnout curves and work toward the center to see what the problem is.

Dunno about the zip - "It works for me" (of course!) As to getting Xtrak to "behave", I thought I was pretty much with you - "Eventually" it'll do what I want! But the above is when I gave up. The two TO's in Goldhill refuse to connect - I tried adding straight track, I tried adding curved track, I tried (as you can see) adding another parallel piece, but it wasn't happening!

... I had a look at your latest track plan

In xtc? or just the png?

- main line seems to be Y shaped, with a very short common stem, some weird crossovers and a not functional runaround (since there is no room for an engine on the right end of it).

No indication of how the thing is supposed to work as a whole.

What exactly are you expecting people to do for you?

Smile,
Stein

Oh dear!.... My apologies - I'm obviously not explaining myself well. Taking your points in turn;

- The main line starts somewhere in the bottom left - This is Virginia City (the highest point) and has a TT (as suggested herein - thx!), a small passenger station, & moves freight/gold. I thought a version of the LHS of Atlas HO-26 (below) could work for example. The line then runs (mainly downhill) to the top right. This is Goldhill.

- Here we have another "little station" etc. In the perfect world, the mainline would continue on (downhill) off to the right - But I've "folded" it back on itself to continue on via the lower rail that currently ends with the wye.

The "weird xovers" you reference are my (admittedly poor) attempt at duplicating a part I already have (image below) - I figured this would be a good location for it.... Add a runaround (as you suggest) and we're on our way!....

But, Xtrak came between me and my vision!........

Cheers,
Ian

 

[steinjr]

By putting the middle town on the narrow part up along the top wall, you are forced to do a switchback configuration. Using a double crossover here also seems pretty weird.

I would suggest just changing the order of the towns ... First one along top wall, second in lower left hand corner, third one on top side of peninsula (or under the first one, as in the first suggestion I made for you, if you want a longer run). You can go downhill all the way, if you want. No need for the switchback configuration in the middle of the layout.

There are some nice prototype track plan on Kent's website. It certainly is possible to model part of a couple of small V&T towns on a layout your size.

It is also possible that a change of footprint would make your life easier - e.g. just going to a donut-shaped layout with a duckunder or liftout, instead of trying to force track plans into the table shape you have now.

Smile,
Stein

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Then Xtrak "intervened"!..... I *cannot* make the runaround track "implied" in Gold Hill connect! [The double xover, while not connected here is a real Shinohara part on 2" centers and "about" that long btw.]

I don't know what parameter you are using, but I was able to do this with the ATL83HO parameter.

 

[steinjr]

Btw - if the challenge is finding or making parameter files for Shinohara turnouts, including double crossovers, try the XtkCad yahoo group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/XTrkCad/

A quick search in that group revealed the advice that a sensible substitute (in terms of geometry) for the Shinohara code 100 double crossover is the #6 double crossover in the Walthers code 83 library (wlthho83.xtp). About 20" long, 2" center.

Not using Shinohara track, I don't know if what you have actually is the code 100 double crossover, or something else.

Smile,
Stein

 

[steinjr]

I've had some trouble with getting runarounds to connect too, but eventually I'm able to get them done. I usually have to start at the turnout curves and work toward the center to see what the problem is.

Easy way of doing runarounds with flextrack in XtrkCad:

1) Draw the track that you will put the turnouts in. Start with e.g. "create straight track" or "create curve". To extend track straight or with same radius, right click, select modify, drag with left mouse button down. To vary curve radius, right click, select modify, drag with right mouse button down.

2) Add turnouts. Shift+click to flip them around until the end you want to connect to is in the right spot, press ENTER to make em sit.

3) Right click right next to track between turnouts, select "parallel" to make parallel track - will give you a second track the default distance away. Defaults can be adjusted on the preferences menu, but are sensible initially.

4) Use connect tool to connect turnout to end of parallel track. Don't just click on the second end - hold the mouse key down and move back and forth until you get a curve radius you are happy with.

Goes a lot faster to do than it is to describe

Smile,
Stein

 

[fast_ian]

Firstly - Thanks for reading my incessant whining and constantly changing ideas guys!.... I just read back thru the whole thing, and it is "evolving" and sometimes taking me (us!) down blind alleys.... I got into wye's for example after deciding (thx to prompts here of course) that turning 'em round would be nice. Problem there was space.... OK, let's do a TT, but that really wants to be on one end of the main, and this space doesn't lend itself thereto - Tried in the middle and that doesn't "work" for me either really. However.....

By putting the middle town on the narrow part up along the top wall, you are forced to do a switchback configuration.

Agreed. I guess that's "wrong" 'cos the the train goes in one way and comes out the other(?) Which got me thinking eek - I originally abandoned trying to put the TT up there due to lack of space for the stuff that generally goes with them. But - How about a "hidden" TT? - The loco gets turned and has to move the caboose (at least) to rebuild the train before then continuing...... This would overcome the "switchback problem" and add some possibly cool switching moves - Would also add a "delay" to the journey......

Using a double crossover here also seems pretty weird.

OK Prototypical? Certainly not, but neither are many other liberties we take - Helix's anyone?

It is also possible that a change of footprint would make your life easier - e.g. just going to a donut-shaped layout with a duckunder or liftout, instead of trying to force track plans into the table shape you have now.

The one given I'm still determined to stick with is no duckunders/liftouts - Sorry! However, I am (once again!) studying the space eek - *Maybe* I can encroach in front of the patio door (non opening side, above the dog door) - This could even bring me back to a suggestion Rico made on page 1!.....

I don't know what parameter you are using, but I was able to do this with the ATL83HO parameter.

Thanks!

....the #6 double crossover in the Walthers code 83 library (wlthho83.xtp). About 20" long, 2" center.

That's exactly what it is - "Walthers / Shinohara code 83, #6 double xover" - I *thought* I had that parameter file loaded, but guess not - Thanks again!

Cheers,
Ian

 

[steinjr]

let's do a TT, but that really wants to be on one end of the main, and this space doesn't lend itself thereto - Tried in the middle and that doesn't "work" for me either really. However.....

So stick a turntable at either end, then.

Here is e.g. a rough sketch for a possible city at the top of the line/on the shelf along the upper wall:

Sticking another 12" turntable at the other end of the line is easy enough.

Smile,
Stein

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Personally, I don't believe a TT needs to be any more than just that. I suppose if you wanted to add a degree of realism, you could simply add a faux front of an engine house, glue it on the wall behind it or something. There is no need to add all the elements unless the lack of realism will bug you. In this case, the TT is for nothing more than turning the engine around. As someone said, you shoudl have a way to turn the caboose around too, but that's pretty easy. I like Stein's design, but if you didn't want the full engine house, just crop in to cut out the part with the engine, hence the faux front against the wall. You could even paint in a couple of engine frontends.

FWIW, Kalmbach's 101 Track Plan book has a several layouts with basically only a TT that would be right at home in your layput. #23 has a TT with some sidings. #42 a TT with a 1-stall engine house. #45 has one with an engine house, but also has a 2nd with just the TT. #51 & #52 also have just the TT, though #51 does lead into a large double yard, same with #60. Others that would work are #63, #75, #81, #87, #96 and #83 actually has 2. The point is to do whatever you need too.

 

[fast_ian]

...I guess that's "wrong" 'cos the the train goes in one way and comes out the other(?) Which got me thinking eek - I originally abandoned trying to put the TT up there due to lack of space for the stuff that generally goes with them. But - How about a "hidden" TT? - The loco gets turned and has to move the caboose (at least) to rebuild the train before then continuing...... This would overcome the "switchback problem" and add some possibly cool switching moves - Would also add a "delay" to the journey......

Nobody shot me down in flames on the above, so I continued down this path.....

*Maybe* I can encroach in front of the patio door (non opening side, above the dog door) - This could even bring me back to a suggestion Rico made on page 1!.....

Nah! I've re-examined how we arrived at the proposed benchwork, and the thinking remains sound. I can encroach a little, but not enough to fit in a loop.... Onwards....

Here is e.g. a rough sketch for a possible city at the top of the line/on the shelf along the upper wall

I've gotta be honest, that's so nice it got me thinking about dropping the slot car track! eek. Then I came to my senses (or lost 'em again depending on your POV ) - The grade crossing is a "central scene" - Always has been why I started down this path.....

Personally, I don't believe a TT needs to be any more than just that.....
....
The point is to do whatever you need too.

Indeed - Thanks for that! Having now followed a number of the "shelf layout" threads, I'm starting to look at this thing as a sort of "extended" shelf - The only loop that fits is pretty small, around the edges and doesn't add much running room - Two "spurs" coming from the top right to the bottom left (much as in Steins original!, but no longer continuing) and the "mine" location could, I think, work without eating all the real estate......

Back to do battle with Xtrak! [I am, slowly, making progress ]

Cheers,
Ian

 

[steinjr]

Mmm - I think the core design issues seems to be that you haven't quite made up your mind about whether you are making an model train layout for operations, with slot cars as sort of animated scenery, or whether you are making a slot car layout, with trains as a sort of animated scenery/moving obstacle for the cars.

For train operations, it makes most sense to have a sort of C shaped main line, with three sites situated after each other on the same line. The Y shaped layout idea creates a pretty messy solution, operational wise.

Course, if your main goal for the trains is to create a sort of moving obstacle for the slot cars at the crossing, just make a shortish line with hidden ends, and automatically run one or two trains back and forth like a pendulum across the crossing with the slot cars.

Smile,
Stein

 

[fast_ian]

Mmm - I think the core design issues seems to be that you haven't quite made up your mind about whether you are making an model train layout for operations,

That!.... It started as a simple loop of track added to the car track - But, as noted in the OP, I discovered DCC, signalling, block detection etc and now want an operations oriented pike.

I believe (as long as the RR doesn't eat all the space) the car track can be overlaid once the rails are done.

...The Y shaped layout idea creates a pretty messy solution, operational wise.

Does it? On this pike, any thru traffic has to turn it's engine (and possibly the entire train) when passing thru "point B"...... Prototypical? - Of course not, but it will delay the thru train and, I'm hoping, add some switching moves if desired. [I'm not trying to argue btw, just questioning why you say "messy?]

Having said all that, and given my new-found fondness for shelf layouts, I am now playing with your originally proposed C shape!......

Cheers, and as always thanks for the comments,
Ian

 

[steinjr]

On this pike, any thru traffic has to turn it's engine (and possibly the entire train) when passing thru "point B"...... Prototypical? - Of course not, but it will delay the thru train and, I'm hoping, add some switching moves if desired. [I'm not trying to argue btw, just questioning why you say "messy?]

Well, "messy" is probably the wrong word. "Pointless" is perhaps a better word.

Modeling a branching location makes sense if you have a yard there, and is sorting cars into trains bound for branch A or into cars bound for the mainline. But you do not have a junction at Gold Hill in real life. According to your description, the V&T RR ran "downhill from Virginia City (where there used to be a TT and maintenance facilities), through Gold Hill and down to the Carson River [Carson City?]."

By placing the midway point on the narrow shelf, and having to leave room for the slot cars, your midway town tends to become a one trick pony - it is where you reverse direction.

You not only reverse directions, but you also use some double crossovers that would have looked at home on a busy double track mainline or in the throat of a busy big city station, but not at a small town midway along a single track line.

At Gold Hill, you also have added a runaround, where the rightmost turnout is located in such a way that it cannot actually be used as a runaround - there is no room to the right of the rightmost turnout for the engine to do a runaround movement.

But the thing is that you already have two other towns where the train will reverse directions - making it reverse directions in the midpoint town too does not really add any more variety to operations. It is just more of the same.

So it comes back to what you really want to model. If the main reason for your change was that you wanted to model a bigger part of Virginia City, including a turntable and engine facilities, maybe you should reconsider whether modeling three towns in a row is the right focus for your layout?

Maybe you should model just Virginia City (and represent the rest of the line with staging), also leaving more room for the slot cars? You can do a lot of interesting switching in Virginia City alone.

If the main reason for Gold Hill is to create more work along the way, so the train doesn't get to it's end point (on the layout) so fast, it would be better to model Gold Hill the way it was, according to the web page you linked to - basically trestle - mainline - short double ended siding with spurs off both ends - spur from siding to the combined freight house and depot:

Creates a need for the engine to run around cars if it is heading towards the right. Cars can also be spotted on the two short spurs off the end of the runaround/double ended siding - from the prototype pics, it looks like the short spur closest to the depot/freight house spur was used for unloading lumber supplies in the olden days.


Or any number of other approaches - the core is figuring out what you want to model - how to fit it into the room then follows.

Smile,
Stein

 

[fast_ian]

Firstly, as always, thanks for the reasoned response - Definitely more food for thought.....

Well, "messy" is probably the wrong word. "Pointless" is perhaps a better word.

OK. But;

By placing the midway point on the narrow shelf, and having to leave room for the slot cars, your midway town tends to become a one trick pony - it is where you reverse direction.

Yep - That's why I suggested it being "hidden" - Trains go in, "magic happens" and they continue.....

You not only reverse directions, but you also use some double crossovers that would have looked at home on a busy double track mainline or in the throat of a busy big city station, but not at a small town midway along a single track line.

Fair comment. It's such a nice piece I wanna use it somewhere!.....

At Gold Hill, you also have added a runaround, where the rightmost turnout is located in such a way that it cannot actually be used as a runaround - there is no room to the right of the rightmost turnout for the engine to do a runaround movement.

Agreed - Thanks. I think my frustration level with xtc kicked in at that point and I never finished it!

But the thing is that you already have two other towns where the train will reverse directions - making it reverse directions in the midpoint town too does not really add any more variety to operations. It is just more of the same.

That's not necessarily true - Current thinking (always subject to change of course!) is one TT is enough. The question then becomes, where should it go?

So it comes back to what you really want to model. If the main reason for your change was that you wanted to model a bigger part of Virginia City, including a turntable and engine facilities, maybe you should reconsider whether modeling three towns in a row is the right focus for your layout?

Maybe you should model just Virginia City (and represent the rest of the line with staging), also leaving more room for the slot cars? You can do a lot of interesting switching in Virginia City alone.

If the main reason for Gold Hill is to create more work along the way, so the train doesn't get to it's end point (on the layout) so fast, it would be better to model Gold Hill the way it was, according to the web page you linked to - basically trestle - mainline - short double ended siding with spurs off both ends - spur from siding to the combined freight house and depot:

Creates a need for the engine to run around cars if it is heading towards the right. Cars can also be spotted on the two short spurs off the end of the runaround/double ended siding - from the prototype pics, it looks like the short spur closest to the depot/freight house spur was used for unloading lumber supplies in the olden days.

Or any number of other approaches - the core is figuring out what you want to model - how to fit it into the room then follows.

All *great* (and appreciated) comments - Back to the drawing board! FWIW, "copying" the prototype isn't the #1 priority - I want it to "make sense", but believe I can suggest the various towns along the way with scenery etc rather than prototypical trackage.

Hopefully, I'll have something to share later today - Always assuming xtc behaves.....

Thanks again for the comments,
Cheers,
Ian

 

[steinjr]

Btw - found a book which may have quite a bit of inspiration for you - a discussion of how to model the V&T as a model railroad, in the Kalmbach book "Classic Railroads You Can Model".

Seems like used copies are available down to $24 at amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Railroads-You-Can-Model/dp/0890246149

Looking at google books, they discuss how to compress and model Virginia City (page 41), Reno, Carson City and Minden (page 40). Google book link - you might be able to see a bit of the book there:
http://books.google.no/books?id=cYs_kM1qAOgC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA41

Smile,
Stein