ORIGINAL REPLY DELETED BY WAZZZY
You are correct. I didn't think the whole idea through. That's what i get for midnight forum browsing.....
Wazzzy There is a simple solution to the issue. Looking at the diagram of the station tracks, there is a top half and a bottom half. These halfs are connected by a single crossover; it doesn't appear to be a double slip switch. That crossover can only have one train on it at any time and the length of that train is of no concern. That crossover needs to be isolated and connected to the auto reverser. Both top and bottom half will be "orientated" electrically the same polarity wise and will not cause an issue. Trains can enter or depart the station on any track or direction. Problem solved??? Your thoughts....
There is a simple solution to the issue.
Looking at the diagram of the station tracks, there is a top half and a bottom half. These halfs are connected by a single crossover; it doesn't appear to be a double slip switch. That crossover can only have one train on it at any time and the length of that train is of no concern.
That crossover needs to be isolated and connected to the auto reverser. Both top and bottom half will be "orientated" electrically the same polarity wise and will not cause an issue.
Trains can enter or depart the station on any track or direction.
Problem solved??? Your thoughts....
You'd have to isolate more than just the cross-over itself - the reversing section needs to be longer than the longest train (assuming lighted cars are in the consist).
Taking your idea a step further, the two tracks at the top that were previously discussed could remain insulated on the left, and the other gaps made at the cross-over point. That would make the entire upper section separated from the rest of the layout and the auto-reverser could be attached to it.
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
KisNap Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "S-curve" possibility? I just like that the double slip acts as another crossover between the two lines.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "S-curve" possibility? I just like that the double slip acts as another crossover between the two lines.
The drawing below illustrates that. The upper left drawing shows a double slip and the upper right drawing shows the straight through route in red. The lower drawings show the crossover and the additional turnout to achieve the same route. You can see the S-curve effect.
Rich
Alton Junction
The N scale section of my website is now uploaded with a lot of various things. Check it out: www.CarlettaTrains.com
KisNap The tracks at those locations are RH switches and the piece where the inner track crosses over the other is currently a double slip switch, but could be replaced with a simple crossover. I initially used the double slip switch to also enable crossing from the inner track to the outer track.
The tracks at those locations are RH switches and the piece where the inner track crosses over the other is currently a double slip switch, but could be replaced with a simple crossover. I initially used the double slip switch to also enable crossing from the inner track to the outer track.
I can easily switch the order of those two lines leading to the Hoboken complex and I agree with you that it makes more sense to have the inner to inner and outer to outer.
Kisnap, let me ask you a question. As the two tracks come down out of the Hoboken Terminal complex and join the mainlines heading south to Walkwick Station, your inner track connects to your outer mainline and your outer track connects to your inner mainline. That seems counter to what I would expect.
Why not connect inner to inner and outer to outer?
Also, what exactly are those various connecting track pieces? Wyes, crossings, RH turnouts? At first, I thought there were two wyes and a crossing, but now I am not so sure.
Looks good to me. The only thing you might want to adjust (if it's not already down) is to swap the two switches and crossing at the top center of your main with the two short sections of track to the left of them. That would gain a precious three to four inches of track for the length of your reverse sections.
Hi Everyone. I have been reading all of the posts and revising parts of my layout. I've removed the wye at the bottom of the layout and instead opted for a line dedicated to freight which will be at least 2 inches below the main commuter line. I have connected it to the commuter line with two transition grades that will not act as a wye.
The station yard has increased in complexity appearance, but I will have a detailed switching board to help keep track of switch direction. Most of the changes there are for storage purposes. I know that it can be done easier, but I want the complex look to have the same idea as the prototype.
Train length will be between 2 1/2 and 3 feet long. I still have some room to extend the station area so I can make the station tracks longer and add more length to the tracks leading to the switching area.
Your input has been INVALUABLE!!! I have definately learned a lot and now know that only two reversers are needed. There will still be some changes like sidings for local industries on the mainline, but I believe the station area is complete as far as tracks go.
Below are images of the updated layout diagram and a look at the protype in Hoboken NJ.
A look at the layout.
Note: The maintenance building siding will be used for locomotive housing or single car maintenance so I don't have to worry about the reversing section's length to that point.
The prototype
But .... you could have two separate trains on each main line running in the same or opposite directions that would need to remain separated electrically should one divert off the main into the passenger terminal. If the inside train is running counter-clockwise and wants into the terminal, it has to cross over to the outside at the top of your reversing section. That cross over would need to be insulted between the inside loop and outside loop.
So now, you are moving from one auto-reverse section to an adjacent auto-reverse section, then finally into the terminal wye.
Doesn't sound like the best of set-ups to me.
Based on the revised trackplan in the opening, the two tracks across the top still make the most sense. The auto-reversers are their own separate entity and not part of the main line. They would only be used when trains are entering / exiting the terminal at the top.
Rich, mentally run trains on the layout the way you have it configured. Run more than one train at a time. Use every possible combination of entrances / exits / cross overs .... you will quickly see its flaws.
Well, you know what? We should all stop commenting because we are doing all the leg work and the OP hasn't really helped us at all.
But, let me say this about the wyes as reversing sections. Aside from the fact that the OP has changed the track diagram since he first posted about it in November, there is really only one crossover within the reversing sections and that could be moved outside the reversing sections. The other piece of track work right below the beginning of the tail of each wye is a crossing, or at least it should be.
As diagrammed, both in November and December, the track diagram seems flawed or, at least, not thoroughly thought out. There are more efficient ways to design it.
richhotrain Good job, Detective Beasley. I stick by my original suggestion to treat the two wyes as reversing sections. I used green dots to mark the location of the gaps. That gives you a lot more length than Mark's option of gapping the top two tracks. As far as trains entering and exiting the wyes simultaneously, that should not be a concern from an auto reverser point of view because two trains would not be operating in such a fashion on the same track. At least, I don't see a concern unless someone can show me differently. I see no problem with using the two wyes as the reversing sections, each using its own auto reverser. Rich
Good job, Detective Beasley.
I stick by my original suggestion to treat the two wyes as reversing sections. I used green dots to mark the location of the gaps.
That gives you a lot more length than Mark's option of gapping the top two tracks.
As far as trains entering and exiting the wyes simultaneously, that should not be a concern from an auto reverser point of view because two trains would not be operating in such a fashion on the same track. At least, I don't see a concern unless someone can show me differently. I see no problem with using the two wyes as the reversing sections, each using its own auto reverser.
And where are you attaching the reverser modules ? If all you are using is the green dots (not the red lines), the wye at the bottom right is still going to cause a short. There are two cross-overs between the sections you have gapped that don't protect two different trains passing each other on the mains.
The track plan submitted at the opening of this thread has also been revised in comparison to this full plan.
Personally, I would not install auto reversers on the main in the middle of a closed loop - but that's just me.
I went back and found the OP's track plan from a thread in November:
Another thing that would be good to know is how the operations will be split between the busy station at the top and the somewhat more relaxed main line. My suggestion that the two main line loops be considered the reversing sections is based on the idea that the station area does not itself need internal auto-reversing, and keeping the whole thing on one circuit would reduce constant polarity flips and avoid some unreconcileable conflicts.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Mark R. He doesn't not need any gaps on the wye ? (wait ... what ?) No gaps in the "Y" as per the diagram .... just gaps to isolate the two tracks across the top as he already has drawn. A reverser module on each of the two tracks. Mark.
He doesn't not need any gaps on the wye ? (wait ... what ?)
No gaps in the "Y" as per the diagram .... just gaps to isolate the two tracks across the top as he already has drawn. A reverser module on each of the two tracks.
Mark R. Don't forget he's modelling in N scale.
Don't forget he's modelling in N scale.
Hmm, and to think, I actually did read all of the posts.......just not completely.
OK, but can we agree then that he doesn't need any gaps on those wyes?
richhotrain Mark, I am not trying to give you a hard time. I was merely picking up on Mr. B.'s suggestion that it would be interesting to see the entire track plan. If you make the top two sections of track the reversing sections, it appears that you only have a 3 foot length of track, hardly enough to accommodate long trains particularly passenger trains with lighted cars. Incidentally, if the scale is 1 square equals 1 foot, that means that the station tracks are only 2 feet plus a few inches. Not that it has anything directly to do with the reversing sections, but that seems like a pretty limiting track plan. Rich
Mark, I am not trying to give you a hard time. I was merely picking up on Mr. B.'s suggestion that it would be interesting to see the entire track plan.
If you make the top two sections of track the reversing sections, it appears that you only have a 3 foot length of track, hardly enough to accommodate long trains particularly passenger trains with lighted cars.
Incidentally, if the scale is 1 square equals 1 foot, that means that the station tracks are only 2 feet plus a few inches. Not that it has anything directly to do with the reversing sections, but that seems like a pretty limiting track plan.
richhotrain Mark R. I think YOU are reading way more into this than needed. This is a reversing wye - it doesn't matter at all whether the right leg is a single track or has 1400 switches, all he's dealing with is the reversing wye. The rest of the layout is not important what's going on either. The track plan IS to scale (IF you read his posts). I don't understand why you are trying to make this sound way more difficult than it actually is. The solution is so simple .... Mark. Mark, be nice to me. I am very sensitive. Seriously, though, I think that the thread has grown complicated. Where exactly are you suggesting gaps? Incidentally, following up on Mr. B.'s comment, I was asking for a scale drawing of the entire track plan. Rich
Mark R. I think YOU are reading way more into this than needed. This is a reversing wye - it doesn't matter at all whether the right leg is a single track or has 1400 switches, all he's dealing with is the reversing wye. The rest of the layout is not important what's going on either. The track plan IS to scale (IF you read his posts). I don't understand why you are trying to make this sound way more difficult than it actually is. The solution is so simple .... Mark.
I think YOU are reading way more into this than needed. This is a reversing wye - it doesn't matter at all whether the right leg is a single track or has 1400 switches, all he's dealing with is the reversing wye. The rest of the layout is not important what's going on either.
The track plan IS to scale (IF you read his posts). I don't understand why you are trying to make this sound way more difficult than it actually is. The solution is so simple ....
Mark, be nice to me. I am very sensitive.
Seriously, though, I think that the thread has grown complicated.
Where exactly are you suggesting gaps?
Incidentally, following up on Mr. B.'s comment, I was asking for a scale drawing of the entire track plan.
C'mon Rich, read the posts. I've already posted twice how I think it should be done and why.
The top two tracks make the most sense as they are longer than the bottom/right two tracks and also longer than any of the storage tracks in the terminal (provided the diagram is correct). By have the reverser on the top two tracks, trains can enter and leave across the top through the reverses while two other trains could enter or leave towards the bottom requiring no reversing section.
I don't see what needing a diagram of the entire layout would have any bearing on this. That's be like asking for directions how to get to my house and you want a map of Canada !
richhotrain I don't recall the overall track plan either. But, if this were my layout, I would have a scale drawing of the entire track plan so I knew the exact length of any proposed reversing section(s). Otherwise, we are all submitting our best guesses, nothing more. This is a complicated track plan, just from what is shown. That station track configuration is complicated enough. Then, you have two crossings that affect both mainlines. Then, there is the double wye. Lots to consider. Rich
I don't recall the overall track plan either. But, if this were my layout, I would have a scale drawing of the entire track plan so I knew the exact length of any proposed reversing section(s). Otherwise, we are all submitting our best guesses, nothing more.
This is a complicated track plan, just from what is shown. That station track configuration is complicated enough. Then, you have two crossings that affect both mainlines. Then, there is the double wye. Lots to consider.
As I recall, the part of the layout not shown is a double loop with some switching in the center and off-page on the lower right. I would consider the option of gapping the tracks as each of the 4 station tracks meet the loops, and then using a pair of reversers to control the loop polarity rather than the station track polarity.
This is always going to be somewhat tricky. I would gap it as you have shown, and keep your feeders separated. Wire things through terminal blocks so that you have the option to re-configure the auto-reversers easily until you find the configuration that works best when you start running trains.
I'd definitely get solid-state autoreversers, not relays. You may encounter situations where the ability of autoreversers to flip polarity back and forth several times per second is important.
Mark R. richhotrain Maybe this has already been covered and I missed it, but why are there gaps on those two horizontal sections of track at the top of the track diagram? Those sections of track should match the polarity of the adjacent sections of track. Rich As per my suggestion, I would use the top two tracks as the reverser sections as they are longer than the other two that are gapped in the diagram .... Mark.
richhotrain Maybe this has already been covered and I missed it, but why are there gaps on those two horizontal sections of track at the top of the track diagram? Those sections of track should match the polarity of the adjacent sections of track. Rich
Maybe this has already been covered and I missed it, but why are there gaps on those two horizontal sections of track at the top of the track diagram?
Those sections of track should match the polarity of the adjacent sections of track.
As per my suggestion, I would use the top two tracks as the reverser sections as they are longer than the other two that are gapped in the diagram ....
What I would be most concerned with is the needed length of the reversing section. As we have already discussed, the proper design is to have the reversing section be longer than the longest train. Where on the layout can that be best accomplished?
The next most important consideration is traffic congestion. Where will most of the train movements take place? It is always advisable to keep the reversing sections away from high traffic areas if that is possible.
Once it has been established that a reversing section is long enough to hold the longest train, the remaining issue is the possibility of one train entering the reversing section while another train is simultaneously entering or exiting the same reversing section. Whenever multiple trains are running on the same track, that is always a concern.
All things considered, I don't see the locations of the reversing sections on this layout such that one location is superior to the other.