Another PFE meeting was held Friday night (May 21), with Dave Smithey, Brendon Groufsky and Graeme Moar present. Brendon Lean (a workmate and fellow modeller) also came around with his Digitrax DCC system and an On30 detailed and sound enhanced logging Climax loco, which we test ran after “Sparky” Brendon had relocated the second power outlet. We also tried to run my two DCC locos (both Kato GP35s) purchased second hand about 8 years ago, but could get neither of them to go. Will have to investigate this later.
We chewed the fat and discussed my revised plan (with the single loop helix) but there were worries about the amount of aisle space taken up by a 30” radius helix.
I spent the weekend thinking about the problem, and how, with the helix and folded figure 8 mainline, the eastern wall of the room would have three levels, when I really only wanted two levels (main and branchline)
I looked at the positives and negatives of how the double loop around the room would go, and despite an extra circuit of the room, most of the extra trackage (or equivalent on original loop) would be hidden, so it only gave a longer run, but nearly half of the run would be out of sight.
That weekend was spent thinking about the pros and cons of the double loop and I finally rejected the idea. Over the next few days I thought of running the storage tracks (in the centre peninsula) out to the mainline loop, but making it look like a typical Midwestern 90◦ crossing (something like Bruce Carpenter’s Nerska Junction, but on a smaller scale), but the higher level branchline track would mean it would be hidden.
But what if the branch was not there? If the branch went around the room counter-clockwise, starting on the short southern wall, crossed the proposed crossing about 150mm (6”) above (trestle?), and arrived at the centre peninsula from the southern wall, and not from the northern (garage door) end, there would be no branch yard above the crossing
That looks like the plan now and in the ensuing week I have started construction on the supporting benchwork for the centre staging tracks and branchline above.
I have decided to terminate the hidden staging with a traverser or sector plate so locomotives can “escape”, and that will allow 8 or 9 tracks (only 6 or 7 will be served by the traverser), with one track dedicated to the locomotive escape, and one for locomotive and/or caboose storage (if operating the layout in the caboose era).
I laid a small section of Pinex over some ply and laid out 8 tracks to see how clearances etc would go, and it looks OK to get 7 tracks to the traverser/sector plate (see photo above).
Staging tracks will be a minimum of about 3 metres (just under 10 feet) and that will dictate the maximum train length.
Staging and other hidden trackage will be code 100, with the rest code 83 and/or 70, but initially I will lay out the majority of track with code 100 (I have a lot from the previous layout), and after the layout is running fine, replace the code 100 with appropriate code 83 or 70 before scenery is installed. I have a small quantity of code 70, so that maybe used on the branch on the eastern wall to start with.
On Monday (May 31st) I installed a couple of sections of 9mm MDF for the staging tracks, and this will be followed with Pinex and/or some form of rubber tape
We chewed the fat and discussed my revised plan (with the single loop helix) but there were worries about the amount of aisle space taken up by a 30” radius helix.
I spent the weekend thinking about the problem, and how, with the helix and folded figure 8 mainline, the eastern wall of the room would have three levels, when I really only wanted two levels (main and branchline)
I looked at the positives and negatives of how the double loop around the room would go, and despite an extra circuit of the room, most of the extra trackage (or equivalent on original loop) would be hidden, so it only gave a longer run, but nearly half of the run would be out of sight.
That weekend was spent thinking about the pros and cons of the double loop and I finally rejected the idea. Over the next few days I thought of running the storage tracks (in the centre peninsula) out to the mainline loop, but making it look like a typical Midwestern 90◦ crossing (something like Bruce Carpenter’s Nerska Junction, but on a smaller scale), but the higher level branchline track would mean it would be hidden.
But what if the branch was not there? If the branch went around the room counter-clockwise, starting on the short southern wall, crossed the proposed crossing about 150mm (6”) above (trestle?), and arrived at the centre peninsula from the southern wall, and not from the northern (garage door) end, there would be no branch yard above the crossing
That looks like the plan now and in the ensuing week I have started construction on the supporting benchwork for the centre staging tracks and branchline above.
I have decided to terminate the hidden staging with a traverser or sector plate so locomotives can “escape”, and that will allow 8 or 9 tracks (only 6 or 7 will be served by the traverser), with one track dedicated to the locomotive escape, and one for locomotive and/or caboose storage (if operating the layout in the caboose era).
I laid a small section of Pinex over some ply and laid out 8 tracks to see how clearances etc would go, and it looks OK to get 7 tracks to the traverser/sector plate (see photo above).
Staging tracks will be a minimum of about 3 metres (just under 10 feet) and that will dictate the maximum train length.
Staging and other hidden trackage will be code 100, with the rest code 83 and/or 70, but initially I will lay out the majority of track with code 100 (I have a lot from the previous layout), and after the layout is running fine, replace the code 100 with appropriate code 83 or 70 before scenery is installed. I have a small quantity of code 70, so that maybe used on the branch on the eastern wall to start with.
On Monday (May 31st) I installed a couple of sections of 9mm MDF for the staging tracks, and this will be followed with Pinex and/or some form of rubber tape
