The PIR-fect Valley Railway

ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.


Smudge617

Smudge617

Well-Known Member
Well, the 60/40 layout has vanished in the mists of time and a new layout begins.

So far I've managed to turn this.

1754698577188.png



Into this.

1754698645147.png

1754698667180.png

1754698692945.png


I bought this second-hand, the previous owner was an N-scaler, as you can see.

The original plan has changed dramatically from what I was intending, as the table is now 2' shorter than it was supposed to be. I found that a 12' table was NOT going to fit in the space.

The original plan, as laid out below, is for a 6' X12' layout.

The plan was, is, to build out one side using open-frame benchwork to maximise the width, (smaller 6" cut-away is for a control panel, point switches, as well as a small programming/test track that I will need to build)

I'm using foam board on a plywood base for the first time, so this should be interesting, and I'll be asking questions. All track is Peco Code 100

The basic idea was to have on the left side an incline on the inner track, and that would pass over a bridge and drop down again to an industrial area where it would level out and then drop again as it curves around the bottom right-hand curve.

The plans below are the ORIGINAL plans I made, but they give a general idea of what I wanted to build, and I will now revise

Note.
The space in the top right corner is supposed to be there. I've had a custom-made Peco medium crossover with slip, which is where it's supposed to go.

1754700679964.png


1754700723114.png


1754700992653.png
 
Smudge617 said:
Well, the 60/40 layout has vanished in the mists of time and a new layout begins.

So far I've managed to turn this.

View attachment 234716


Into this.

View attachment 234717
View attachment 234718
View attachment 234719

I bought this second-hand, the previous owner was an N-scaler, as you can see.

The original plan has changed dramatically from what I was intending, as the table is now 2' shorter than it was supposed to be. I found that a 12' table was NOT going to fit in the space.

The original plan, as laid out below, is for a 6' X12' layout.

The plan was, is, to build out one side using open-frame benchwork to maximise the width, (smaller 6" cut-away is for a control panel, point switches, as well as a small programming/test track that I will need to build)

I'm using foam board on a plywood base for the first time, so this should be interesting, and I'll be asking questions. All track is Peco Code 100

The basic idea was to have on the left side an incline on the inner track, and that would pass over a bridge and drop down again to an industrial area where it would level out and then drop again as it curves around the bottom right-hand curve.

The plans below are the ORIGINAL plans I made, but they give a general idea of what I wanted to build, and I will now revise

Note.
The space in the top right corner is supposed to be there. I've had a custom-made Peco medium crossover with slip, which is where it's supposed to go.

View attachment 234722

View attachment 234724

View attachment 234725
Click to expand...
Interesting track plan! The location of the turntable is unique. Any reason why you chose that location and not somewhere closer to the engine facility?
 
Smudge617 said:
Well, the 60/40 layout has vanished in the mists of time and a new layout begins.
Click to expand...
Still a little in shock! 😀

Smudge617 said:
Note The space in the top right corner is supposed to be there. I've had a custom-made Peco medium crossover with slip, which is where it's supposed to go.
Click to expand...
That is going to make some very unique track work!

Cant wait to see a video of it in action!
 


Guilford Railman said:
Interesting track plan! The location of the turntable is unique. Any reason why you chose that location and not somewhere closer to the engine facility?
Click to expand...
No particular reason, just an empty piece of real estate that I couldn't think what I could use it for, I don't want buildings near the edge, I'm quite clumsy, didn't fancy rebuilding damaged buildings I'd knocked over.

I did have a more traditional location for it, plus a couple of "alternate" plans depending on how the actual build developed. The issue I am having, or did have, is the % of the inclines up to the left. It's a fine line between what's possible and what will work.

This is one without any incline at all, but still has a reverse loop

1754737394790.png


This one is with a much smaller incline than my originally planned one, where the outer track goes under the inner one, with this plan the inner track goes over a smaller road bridge (11.5cms) and there's no reverse loop.
1754737601451.png
 
Smudge617 said:
No particular reason, just an empty piece of real estate that I couldn't think what I could use it for, I don't want buildings near the edge, I'm quite clumsy, didn't fancy rebuilding damaged buildings I'd knocked over.

I did have a more traditional location for it, plus a couple of "alternate" plans depending on how the actual build developed. The issue I am having, or did have, is the % of the inclines up to the left. It's a fine line between what's possible and what will work.

This is one without any incline at all, but still has a reverse loop

View attachment 234772

This one is with a much smaller incline than my originally planned one, where the outer track goes under the inner one, with this plan the inner track goes over a smaller road bridge (11.5cms) and there's no reverse loop.
View attachment 234773
Click to expand...
I like the first example better myself but I can understand the fine line between what is possible and what isn’t with the inclines.

Regardless of which way you go, looking forward to the build:)
 
Well, that plan was a bust, losing 24" means the inclines would be unrealistic to say the least, (one side was 7%!!!) So I've binned that idea, after a lot of double-checking and triple-checking my measurements, I've come up with a new plan, similar to the original, but I'm not sure if the reverse loop will work, looks a bit tight.

The turnouts top and bottom of the plan are placeholders for the scissor crossings I intend to use.

1754778418202.png
 


So, having lost 2' of my new layout, I've had to revise the layout plan somewhat. I think this will work, but as we all know, the proof is in the pudding.

1754834688351.png


The top junction will have a scissors crossover with a single slip (Scarm doesn't have one in its library.)
I'm also contemplating adding a scissor crossover in front of the platform so any loco's on the middle track will have access to the TT>
Oh! In case you're wondering why I have a section of platform across the tracks, that's a placeholder for a high level 3-track signal box.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.




Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)

Back
Top