Module experimentation

[rod.h]

I've not been in a mood to do much lately. The only thing I've done is to start redoing the switch motors mounting blocks in a thicker ply(9mm verses 4mm) and acquiring a spring steel wire cutter. I felt the potential for damaging the track whilst using a cutting wheel equipped dremel was too much.

In all of this I've been forgetting the electrical side of thing, the outline of it is; a DCC bus will be run, the module connections for it will use Anderson powerpole connectors. It's just the control panel, that's throwing me. I'm after a connector that easy to separate, has at least 18 pins minimum and is good for 7-21V dc. That basic spec has me leaning towards a D connector or plugable terminal blocks.

[rod.h]

I was processing Rich's suggestion first; I can’t easily move the double slips due to the switch machines I’m using and installed. The only thing I can do is modify the curve.

Staging is still a blank page, like the rest of the scenary. 

[rrinker]

 Still looks like there's an angle between the station track and the slip switch. Yes, it will make the third, fourth, and fifth tracks from the top slightly shorter since the slip has to be moved down and to the left a little. You really don;t want to have any sort of kink there.

 What you changed wasn't the part I was talking about, but that also helps remove the S curve at that top switch, although there is now no runaround space to the right, other than running on to your staging cassette. Which is fine.

                    --Randy

[richhotrain]

Rod, that looks a lot smoother, give it a try.

Rich

 

[rod.h]

So, something like this:

Though the closeness of the hill means it'd be more like:

Hmm, it's more food for thought.

[rrinker]

 I really would move the two crossovers down a biut so the track from th station would line up. Looking at the picture of the actual module, that's a horribly tight wiggle in that piece of flex track to make it connect. So the spacing between the second and third yard tracks won;t be the same as the others/ That's really not an issue. If you had more space you could make that a very gentle S curve which would never cause a problem but then you may not have a straight connection at the module joint and the station track would not be straight.

 Back on the video - that derailment was caused by the very sharp S curve formed by those Set Track turnouts AND limited coupler swing on those cars that derailed. The other longer cars, the couplers could swing enough to work on that curve, but not those flat cars. Sharp curves and long cars just don't mix without unrealistic modifications to allow the draft gear to swing, and having the sharp curve be an S curve just doubles down on the problem.

                         --Randy

[richhotrain]

The addition of the crossover will accomplish your objective for a loco escape track. 

Elimination of the 3-way turnout is a smart move.  I have three 3-ways, lined up end to end, on my layout, and they present a lot of operational problems.

I will offer the following thought.  You could add a second curved turnout right where the green colored track begins.  Then, you could eliminate that RH turnout leading to the grain silo.  That would smooth the track out more and give you added space for grain cars.

Rich

[rod.h]

That's the intention, as I was seeing no way to get a loco to the other end without push-pulling/top-tailing and the runaround is insufficent.

The demise of the 3-way is the same, I'm not seeing a way to fit a second switch machine in that location without assembling some off axis complication.

[richhotrain]

Is the purpose of the crossover that you added to provide an escape track for the loco?

Rich

[rod.h]

I'm starting to think that I've created an operational nightmare in regards to the grain silo siding, in that it's fine whilst it's pre-staged with wagons. It's the reverse that's now concerning me.

Does this arrangement alleviate my concerns or have I created more?

[rod.h]

Actually quite the opposite, winter mainly stopped play. No snow, just a lot of rain and near freezing temps. Autumn and spring is usually when I get creative and summer is a time of wishing to live in a freezer.

I suspect once I get the track powered up, the points motorized, some structures assembled and run some trains, where the green, grey and brown stuff goes will get some what clearer.

 

I'm also starting to think that the 3-ways going to be an issue and needs to be replaced with two normal turnouts, a LH on the yard module and the RH on the station one and increase the grain silo siding to suit. It will make installing the cobalt motors easier and increase the feel of the prototype some what, as they only used 3-way switches in extremely exceptional circumstances.

[richhotrain]

Don't know where you live, Rod, but summer is probably getting in your way of working on your layout.  Just look forward to the change of seasons and maybe your sense of inspiration will return.

Rich

[rod.h]

This is the only thing I've really done to the modules in a number of months, besides track down buildings and electrics. Add a hill.

And yes those are some WS ready rocks, they're doing a great job of being a placeholder. Some work and others don't, I suspect that a batch of casting is going to be in my future along with using sculptamold to deterrace the hill.

[rod.h]

I haven't really been feeling like doing much of anything with my trains lately due to lack of inspiration. A recent Walther order however arrived and the Prairie co-op it contained, will fit once the loading shed is removed.

Still, not quite sure on how to arrange my scenery and structures as the prototype I'm freelancing from can be quite out there. For example I've come across a long grain silo siding that's only accessible via a short headshunt combined with a level crossing, a goods shed which is now a DMU stabling location amongst other thing.

[rod.h]

Well, the second frame is done and cars pass over the module joint with no fuss.

Possibly how I might load the yard for initial stand-alone operation;

It's probably not quite how the prototype does a goods yard plus station and I suspect it's oversize for a branchline terminus. I've probably got a bit of a think ahead on, do I really need a grain silo; and if I do, where does it go? 

Here's an example of a drawback in how I've being building layouts, installation of switch machines.

The advice from here helped and it pretty much works, just needs some fine tuning. I don't know if I'll use switch machines on the rest of these turnouts due to space restrictions at the 3-way, there's only space for one Tortoise/Cobalt in a location that needs two. Two PL-10's will fit, however I'd like to use something other than solenoids. I thought of using servos, yet wiring them up seems worse then solenoids.

 edit: a rough scenic sketch up with noodleings on where to place a grain silo, at A or B.

Edit^2: My measuring is way off. Along the front of module, I've got 10-14 centimeters to play with. That means any silo kit will need modifications to fit. Moving the station back makes little sense as the prototype has them on the town side. I've also thought of a station/layout name: Meyerdorf or Meyerdörflich.  

[rod.h]

I go into things in fits and starts, so there will come a point where not much happens, therefore I'm getting the bones down as fast as I can. As I'm intending to use it as a competition entry. I believe that there's about 8-10 months to do it all in.

To make it easer to set up, I'm cribbing from the T-Trak module design to build an underframe for those foamboards. If HO gauge Unitrack was more readily available down here, I might've built some T-Track HO modules instead.

I both like and dislike the twin double slip variant for degrees of operational and construction issues, though I do have an idea for some industries currently just a goods shed and a livestock run.

 

Also I've added another discovery in my translating from CAD to reality file, that minor s-curve/kink from the double slip to #2 road isn't visible once I laid down some flextrack. It's probably an board alignment artifact that'll change once I get the frames installed to my tops.

 edit: And the first frame is done;

First time I've ever used Weldbond glue and I found it to be a very aggravating substance, until I used some screws. The second frame should come together somewhat quicker.

[wildecoupe]

I like the progression.  That last one looks like it would be fun to switch around.  I have a switching module in the works right now.  Need to pick up some wood for the frame yet, hopefully this weekend.  

Keep up the posts!  Would love to see how this progresses.

Tim

[rod.h]

 

Hmm, trip pins are on the list of things to check and at the time I filmed that, it wasn't something I did. Most of my couplers are Kadee's typically of the #148/158 type.

 

A few days away and I started thinking of the yard, specifically if there was anything at platform #1(teal) half the yard became unusable.

 

And these are the results;

For some reason I'm liking this variation, though it's probably operationally pointless;

 

And looking at it more, I've ended up with shunting puzzle yard.

[Medina1128]

rod.h

Those container flat's are scale 63' long and the passenger car's I have are scale 58' long. I've had minor issues with 3-ways, most of them from operator error. Though I suppose more would be cleared once I actually get around to checking back to back. It's just something I've never done, though I do check coupler hights.  

After watching your video a few times, I noticed a few issues:

• Uneven coupler heights
• Coupler trip pins that are too low, especially on the car that derailed. 

It's easy to blame the track for the problems, but you should consider a regimen before any new equipment hits the track. Mine is as follows:

• Replace any couplers with Kadees and use their coupler gauge to check coupler head and trip pin height. If the couplers are too low, use their fiber washers to raise the car body or, consider using a coupler with an offset head. They offer them in underset and overset. I cut off the couplers on rolling stock that have Talgo trucks (the ones with the coupler attached to the truck) and body mount them. This will alleviate derailments when backing up. This will also depend on your minimum curve radius. Body mounted couplers on long rolling stock will require a wider curve.
• Check the weight of the cars using NMRA RP20-1.
• Check all of the wheels. I replace plastic with metal ones. You'll hear plenty of opinions on this, but it's a personal preference for me.
• If you have an S-curve (I had one that required quite a rework), make sure you have a straight section at least as long as your longest piece of stock/locomotive. 

 

[rod.h]

Those were what I'd initially installed on my main layout, I tried a few things to fix it that didn't work. So, I just decided to use peco streamline small and medium radius turnouts instead.

As expected after a few hours playing with flex and set track I've ended up with something different to the inital plan and it'll no doubt change some more once I put more thought to it. I suspect aiming for a island platform was an impossible target.

 And it did;

 

Long lengths of curved flex are not my strong point, hence the usage of  Peco setrack curves where appropriate.  

 

[wildecoupe]

The problem is due to the fact that you have an S bend and are taking long cars across without having enough of a straight in the middle of the S.  If you would have a bigger turnout would help.  Peco small radius is basically a #4.  You have a #2.  The smaller the #, the sharper the turnout.  A #4 might be the minimum you'd want to try that type of layout with.  #6 would be best or larger.  It basically flattens out the S and there's less pulling sideways of the front of the car once its through the turnout.  

[rod.h]

An example of why I don't use Peco settrack ST240/1's, anywhere! (if the video doesn't embed try https://youtu.be/es88B4ZLZnQ)

Those container flat's are scale 63' long and the passenger car's I have are scale 58' long.
I've had minor issues with 3-ways, most of them from operator error. Though I suppose more would be cleared once I actually get around to checking back to back. It's just something I've never done, though I do check coupler hights.

 

And presenting what I do have

That's so much yellow and it's roughly how I'd load for fiddle yard usage, for stand alone use I think a lot less passenger carriages, probably two or three plus the guard van which gives me the length of the station platform I need on the other module. Just not where to place it or type, I'm thinking island though side might work.

 

[cuyama]

rod.h

I've had issues with are the ST-240 & ST-241

Those are SetTrack turnouts, which are extremely sharp. That is the "train set" line. 

The Streamline curved turnouts in Code 75 and Code 100 are very reliable.

You are much more likely to have trouble with the 3-way than with the curved turnouts, as long as you don't create kinks in attaching the flex track to the ends.

[RideOnRoad]

I have limited experience with Peco curved turnouts--I have one on my N-Scale layout. I have not had a single problem, no derailments, no power routing problems, nothing. I have been very pleased, given my sample size of one.

[wildecoupe]

Those are pretty sharp turnouts.  How long was your rolling stock that had problems?  Over 50' scale?

[rod.h]

It's a Peco curved turnout I'm looking at using and the only turnouts of theirs I've had issues with are the ST-240 & ST-241 running certain length rollingstock over them would consistently derail.

[wildecoupe]

If it's a Peco, you shouldn't have any problems. Just be sure all of your wheels are in gauge. 

Tim

[rod.h]

So a bit more like:

 

I'm not too worried on curves as long as I get them close to the 18"-22" radius ballpark. I've more concerns over the curved turnout, as I've seen many a post decrying their existence and I've never used one before.

[wildecoupe]

For the top curve, if you shorten the straight and lengthen that curve, it should smooth out some.  

Tim