Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline vertex  
#1 Posted : 17 March 2012 21:18:56(UTC)
vertex

United States   
Joined: 03/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 38
Location: Texas
Hey all,

I've been playing with one of those free track planning programs and came up with the following design for my new layout.

I'd appreciate it if someone was to look it over to ensure that the proposed layout is feasable. I'd hate to start buying track just to find out things don't quite fit. Of course feel free to make any comments regarding the design.

Thanks!
vertex attached the following image(s):
trk_rvw.jpg
Offline Yumgui  
#2 Posted : 17 March 2012 21:59:29(UTC)
Yumgui

United States   
Joined: 20/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,660
Location: Paris, France
Hi vertex,

Nice plan !

But, which type track are you using ? Is it Märklin C, K, M, other ... ? Is layout analog, digital ... squirrel ?

Which software ?

What accessories are you planning to use ? Any level changes ? ... etc etc etc ... ^^ ?

More information would certainly be helpful ... ^^

Yum Cool
If your M track is rusted ... DON'T throw it out !
Working on: https://studiogang.com/projects/all
My heavy train station renovation: https://youtu.be/QQlyNiq416A
Inspired by: http://www.nakedmarklin.com/... Am not alone in this universe, phew.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Yumgui
Offline DigitalNZ  
#3 Posted : 17 March 2012 23:56:11(UTC)
DigitalNZ

New Zealand   
Joined: 13/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 228
Location: Masterton, New Zealand
I drew your plan up myself and on the flat I agree that everything joins up. Remember that you can substitute a 24188 with a 24094 + 24997 uncoupler track if you wish. IIRC there is now a 24360 track section which is the same as a 24188 + 24172. It just allows you to avoid having as many joins in the track on your straight sections.

Kind Regards.

Daniell
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by DigitalNZ
Offline pyxa69  
#4 Posted : 18 March 2012 00:35:06(UTC)
pyxa69

United States   
Joined: 05/05/2007(UTC)
Posts: 123
Location: Brooklyn NY
Looks cool to me
Good look on your new layoutThumpUp
And make sure you post some pictures of your progressRollEyes
MaRkLiN rules
Offline vertex  
#5 Posted : 18 March 2012 01:13:34(UTC)
vertex

United States   
Joined: 03/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 38
Location: Texas
Originally Posted by: Yumgui Go to Quoted Post
Hi vertex,

Nice plan !

But, which type track are you using ? Is it Märklin C, K, M, other ... ? Is layout analog, digital ... squirrel ?

Which software ?

What accessories are you planning to use ? Any level changes ? ... etc etc etc ... ^^ ?

More information would certainly be helpful ... ^^

Yum Cool


Hi guys,

Sorry about that...

- It will be using Märklin "C" track - I do have some "M" track but I figure if I'm going to make the switch to "C" now would be the time to do it.
- Digital layout (Will be using my ECoS I).
- No level changes for this one.
- Turnouts will be digital.
- mostly running Ep IV+ (SBB, OBB, DB, FS).
- Used XtrkCAD

- Cantenary *may* be added later.

Let me know if I missed anything.

Originally Posted by: DigitalNZ Go to Quoted Post
I drew your plan up myself and on the flat I agree that everything joins up. Remember that you can substitute a 24188 with a 24094 + 24997 uncoupler track if you wish. IIRC there is now a 24360 track section which is the same as a 24188 + 24172. It just allows you to avoid having as many joins in the track on your straight sections.

Kind Regards.

Daniell


Thanks for the tips on those two track combos. I had totally forgotten about adding a couple of uncoupler tracks.
Offline steventrain  
#6 Posted : 18 March 2012 08:39:25(UTC)
steventrain

United Kingdom   
Joined: 21/10/2004(UTC)
Posts: 31,394
Location: United Kingdom
Very good trackplan.

Is there a room for station?
Large Marklinist 3- Rails Layout with CS2/MS2/Boosters/C-track/favorites Electric class E03/BR103, E18/E118, E94, Crocodiles/Steam BR01, BR03, BR05, BR23, BR44, BR50, Big Boy.
Offline vertex  
#7 Posted : 19 March 2012 00:13:34(UTC)
vertex

United States   
Joined: 03/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 38
Location: Texas
Yes, there will be room for a station. The plan doesn't currently illustrate any of the improvements that will go in the inner sections, nor how much actual room is planned around the outer perimeter of the track for additional structures, scenery and such.


(on a side note) This plan originally called for two tunnels going under the main layout. But I was concerned that the grades would be too steep and the additional contruction that would be required so I opted to remove them. Here's how it originally looked.
vertex attached the following image(s):
trk_org.jpg
Offline BrandonVA  
#8 Posted : 19 March 2012 15:42:32(UTC)
BrandonVA

United States   
Joined: 09/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,533
Location: VA
Vertex,

Looks very good. Grades seem like trouble, but they are not so bad to make. Do you know what percent grade these would have been? There are also some products that make it pretty easy (WS grades - hint, hint)

-Brandon
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by BrandonVA
Offline vertex  
#9 Posted : 19 March 2012 22:56:01(UTC)
vertex

United States   
Joined: 03/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 38
Location: Texas
Brandon,

I dont recall the exact numbers now, but I do remember them being well over 4%. I guess if I wanted to reintroduce the tunnel an easy fix would be to just make it one long tunnel with a straight portion of track in the bottom section, that would likely keep the grades in the 3-4% range. I'd feel more comfortable at say 2-3% though.

-V
Offline BrandonVA  
#10 Posted : 20 March 2012 14:13:56(UTC)
BrandonVA

United States   
Joined: 09/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,533
Location: VA
I understand. Marklin's "example" grades for the bridges in catalogs are generally 5%...but it is a lot of work. I've had no trouble with 4 and 5% grades on my layout, but you do have to pay more attention to such steep grades as far as speed and train construction. Certainly less % would lend to less traction tire wear. 2-3% could take a lot of room, helps to remove the dilemma for you I think. You've got a very nice track plan even without the grades.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by BrandonVA
Offline vertex  
#11 Posted : 21 March 2012 19:29:59(UTC)
vertex

United States   
Joined: 03/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 38
Location: Texas
Thats good info Brandon. To be honest I was operating under the assumption that the max grade recommended by Marklin was 4%. For the original plan as drawn the grades were closer in the 5-6% range so was likely still not feasible.

Offline vertex  
#12 Posted : 08 April 2012 01:53:10(UTC)
vertex

United States   
Joined: 03/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 38
Location: Texas
Hey all,

I'm toying with some ideas for an annex. I'd appreciate if you give a once over as I'm concerned that the track may not all line up properly.

Thanks

vertex attached the following image(s):
yard01a.jpg
Offline DigitalNZ  
#13 Posted : 08 April 2012 02:05:24(UTC)
DigitalNZ

New Zealand   
Joined: 13/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 228
Location: Masterton, New Zealand
Hi Vertex,

I've also had a similar problem with with my plans, but AFAIK there is a certain amount of wiggle room with C track. From my experience the yellow dots are definite combos that won't work, if they are joined on the computer without any dots they should be fine. The computer doesn't show this flexibility, but I'd say you should be fine. I will draw it up myself later and see what I can do.

Regards,

Daniell
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by DigitalNZ
Offline Nielsenr  
#14 Posted : 08 April 2012 04:36:32(UTC)
Nielsenr

United States   
Joined: 06/10/2010(UTC)
Posts: 882
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Hey Vertex,

I have found that C track does have a little give when building a layout. I did put your design into AnyRail 4 and they "snapped" into place ok.

I do have a couple of comments however. The 7294 Transfer Table is for M track, so you will have to use the 24952 M to C adapter tracks. I believe they are sold in pairs. They are 180mm long. The second point is that with the 24977 bumpers, you will get minimal extra space for train length. The point is unless your locos are short, 180mm or less, there will not be much space to store the loco on the track. I figure BR 01 and BR 50 type locos will need at least 280mm. That means you would need to add a 24094 at a minimum to store these locos. Do you have enough room to add a 24188 to each of the straights off of the half circle of 24130 curves?


Good Luck!!

Robert
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Nielsenr
Offline witzlerh  
#15 Posted : 08 April 2012 05:14:22(UTC)
witzlerh

Canada   
Joined: 25/09/2010(UTC)
Posts: 416
Location: Sherwood Park, AB, Canada
With Wintrack, you can determine the offset by clicking each mis-match and looking at the lower right portion of the window to see the resultant displacement.

With C track you can have a little offset. There is more give with a linear offset or over/underlap but not as much if there is an angular mismatch.
You can also adjust the mismatch tollerance in the options menu.
Harald
CS2 DB & Canadian Era 3-6
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by witzlerh
Offline vertex  
#16 Posted : 08 April 2012 07:28:51(UTC)
vertex

United States   
Joined: 03/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 38
Location: Texas
Hi Daniell, Robert, Harald -

Thanks for the input guys. I'm making the transition from “M” to “C” so your feedback has put my concerns regarding tolerances at ease. I do have some room to extend out the half circle and provide more space for transfer table. I’ll keep in mind that I’ll have to replace some of those 188’s with 24951’s.

Here’s how it shaping up based on feedback.

-Serge
vertex attached the following image(s):
yard01b.jpg
yard01b_all.jpg
Offline DigitalNZ  
#17 Posted : 08 April 2012 07:46:38(UTC)
DigitalNZ

New Zealand   
Joined: 13/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 228
Location: Masterton, New Zealand
Plan looks great so far to me. I really like the reverse loops you've included!
Just remember to think about uncoupler tracks, they are great to use even on a temporary layout like our one.

Daniell
Offline vertex  
#18 Posted : 08 April 2012 18:46:22(UTC)
vertex

United States   
Joined: 03/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 38
Location: Texas
Thanks Daniell, Yes, even though the plan doesn't currently reflect it I will have some uncoupler tracks. I'm also going to probably extend the left side (sections running North/South) by 360mm.

-Serge
Offline petestra  
#19 Posted : 08 April 2012 21:59:34(UTC)
petestra

United States   
Joined: 27/07/2009(UTC)
Posts: 5,731
Location: Leesburg,VA.USA
Hi Serge, I love the layout, excellent! PeterThumpUp
Offline kumarvartak  
#20 Posted : 24 August 2012 09:23:44(UTC)
kumarvartak


Joined: 25/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 97
Location: India
I am a Marklin enthusiast from India and am planning a large layout with vintage M Track Three Rail.
The plan you have displayed is very interesting, and I suppose the layout must have been built by now.
Please let me know the size of the plan I mean length and width.
Thanks,
Kumar Vartak,
Pune India
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2021, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.749 seconds.