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 Minok  
#1 Posted : 28 November 2016 21:50:46(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,310
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
In my planned layout the two ends will be at head stations (kopfbahnhof) at Hamburg-Altona (soon to be dismantled in Germany it seems) and München.

As those two remote ends of my layout run will be on the self sections I have to solve the problem of how to have trains exit out again, after stopping.

In the prototype, the loco gets uncoupled and a new loco installed at the other end. That would mean I'd need approx 2x the number of locos as I have trains (so for one train, I'd need 3 locos just to be able to return the train once it gets to the other end: 1 loco is running the train, and 1 is positioned at each end station waiting to become the next train loco). Now add in other loco types for other types of trains, and quickly I'm having to purchase 4 or 6 locos just to run my 2-3 train classes from end to end. (lucky the ICE is bidirectional). At $300+ per loco (for a DB BR110 or DB BR103 for example) thats is gonna get spendy.

So I thought, what about using a transfer table inside the station building (where it won't be seen), so I can uncouple the incoming loco, drive it to the transfer table, transfer it to a empty track, and then drive it out of the station, and back it up to the train that is there, and off I go. Given the transfer tables are about €20 cheaper than a single loco, for 2 transfer tables I'd have my problem solved for any non-two-headed train. (ie for all of my IC, E, and local trains).

Does this seem like a reasonable idea? Is there a cheaper transfer table solution available (as I don't need the prototypical look, its all going to be hidden inside the station building)?

The open question I still have is what is the track spacing on the 5 tracks on one side? I'd have to spread them out to be able to get platforms between them in some way. But how much further length will that add to the solution (and station building as a result) to put in the added s curves?

Transfer Table Station - all 5.PNG

An alternative is to just use the center and outer 2 (so 3 of the 5), is that enough to get the rails in there.

Transfer Table Station - only 3.PNG


Which one is best depends on how much width I will end up having as well as station depth (length), and # of tracks I will need. I can see getting by with 3, and that lets the station be narrower, but is there enough space between the tracks if I skip on on the transfer table so that I can put a workable passenger platform between them?

What is that spacing from table track 1 to track 3 (center to center)?
Toys of tin and wood rule!
---
My Layout Thread on marklin-users.net: InterCity 1-3-4
My YouTube Channel:
https://youtube.com/@intercity134
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Minok
Offline DaleSchultz  
#2 Posted : 28 November 2016 22:31:43(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
I don't think transfer tables will work so well inside the building, plus you have to uncouple them somehow and if you can reach in to fix issues, they you can also see in.

You only need one spare loco per station, and the coupling and uncoupling will make very prototypical activity.
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by DaleSchultz
Offline Minok  
#3 Posted : 28 November 2016 23:39:00(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,310
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post
I don't think transfer tables will work so well inside the building, plus you have to uncouple them somehow and if you can reach in to fix issues, they you can also see in.

You only need one spare loco per station, and the coupling and uncoupling will make very prototypical activity.


Valid points.

The theory all hinges upon having a reliable uncoupling track segment that will fire when the locomotive pulls in the end spot. Or I'd have to fit telex couplers to the locos (but the my plan of feeding power to car lighting via the locomotive coupler is likely out the window). I'd like the operation to some day be fully automated, to get a train to run end to end continuously with the repositioning of the locomoitives also being computer controlled.

I'd need one spare loco of each type at the each station. So if I am pulling an InterCity train (in my case a red/ivory livery BR103), I'd need a spare for that. For the schnellzug pulled by a blue/ivory BR110 I'd need a matching spare for that, etc. I don't want to mix and match any old loco pulling the cars. Thats why it would be so spendy. Granted, I could use a switching loco at each station to pull the passenger cars out onto a siding, back out the main loco, then reposition the passenger cars, and pull the loco into place again, as an alternative. That would indeed then only require a single small loco at each station, though I'd still need the uncoupler tracks.

I'd build the station to have a removable roof panel to address any occasional issues. Why (beyond the uncoupling problem) do you feel having a transfer table inside a station to move locomotives off of a track and around the platform to an exit track? Its a problem I need to solve. A loop of R1 would take up much more space than a transfer table, hence why I'm considering this.


- update -
And I realized of course, that one can solve it with just turnouts, and they don't even have to be electrically controllable and can be merely spring-driven to maintain one state.
I'll have to sit down with the track layout software to see what the space requirements really are, as this solution is the most foolproof and inexpensive, if it doesn't take up much more space than a table.

Non-Transfer Table Station .PNG
Toys of tin and wood rule!
---
My Layout Thread on marklin-users.net: InterCity 1-3-4
My YouTube Channel:
https://youtube.com/@intercity134
Offline Carim  
#4 Posted : 29 November 2016 09:42:43(UTC)
Carim

United Kingdom   
Joined: 15/09/2014(UTC)
Posts: 649
Location: London
Originally Posted by: Minok Go to Quoted Post
That would mean I'd need approx 2x the number of locos as I have trains


Trust me, if by the time you are ready to actually run a train, you only have two locos per train then you really haven't been trying! LOL

Carim

Offline analogmike  
#5 Posted : 30 November 2016 18:46:30(UTC)
analogmike

United States   
Joined: 02/08/2014(UTC)
Posts: 737
Location: NEW JERSEY, USA
Hey Minok,
Have you considered using a Sector Plate arrangement?
It seems to be a simpler alternative to using a transfer table.
You will have the freedom to set as many tracks in any position as desired.
It has been used in the prototype.Drool ThumpUp

Mikey.

post-6867-0-77554500-1346354446.jpg1024px-DRG_Class_41_on_Neuenmarkt_turntable.JPGsector-plate-5.jpg
I love the smell of smoke fluid in the morning .
thanks 4 users liked this useful post by analogmike
Offline DaleSchultz  
#6 Posted : 30 November 2016 20:23:26(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
I always try to ensure access to every part of the layout and if there is some area where stuff has to line up (like your transfer table) I know access is needed more often.

The sector plan idea is good but I think the turnouts will be simpler and less prone to stuff going wrong as there are just fewer things to go wrong.

Both rely on uncoupler sections of course, and I don't know how reliable those are, can you try one with your locos and coaches as a test?
You could perhaps build static uncouplers, - that are always 'up' - since you will always need them to uncouple as the loco passes over. It may be more reliable and silent. Perhaps with a slot in the middle for the loco slider to stay in contact wit the studs.

Fully automated coupling of a loco onto a train is extremely difficult to achieve. I have seen a video of it being achieved once only. Every train using a particular track would probably have to be the exact same length so that the loco can position itself exactly at the end of the train, and then you have to have the coupling engage without pushing train over the uncoupler at the other end. You may need LOTS of positioning feedback point to know where the loco is and where the end of the train is. I suspect that the coupling part will have to be a manual operation and the run around work is easily automated.

What about pull/pull operations ? I have done that with my S-Bahn trains and is very prototypical.

If some manual intervention is needed, what about a string pulled 'transfer table' that can be operated by hand to quickly move the loco in the building to an exit track? This may allow you to have a shorter moving track which will have more chance of fitting in the building. The exit track could also go out to an engine yard so that the 'new' loco approaches from the engine depot.
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
Offline kiwiAlan  
#7 Posted : 30 November 2016 22:21:27(UTC)
kiwiAlan

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 8,082
Location: ENGLAND, Didcot
Originally Posted by: analogmike Go to Quoted Post
Hey Minok,
Have you considered using a Sector Plate arrangement?
It seems to be a simpler alternative to using a transfer table.
You will have the freedom to set as many tracks in any position as desired.
It has been used in the prototype.Drool ThumpUp

Mikey.

post-6867-0-77554500-1346354446.jpg


Hey Mikey, where was this photo taken? I have the Noch 66250 sector turntable and have an idea of how to justify using it, but am looking for prototype examples.
Offline Minok  
#8 Posted : 30 November 2016 22:47:42(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,310
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
This is why the forum is so great, you get ideas you didn't think of.

Originally Posted by: analogmike Go to Quoted Post
Hey Minok,
Have you considered using a Sector Plate arrangement?
It seems to be a simpler alternative to using a transfer table.
sector-plate-5.jpg


Great possibility - a much simplified turn table - that could serve 2 tracks in with an exit track out.



Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post

The sector plan idea is good but I think the turnouts will be simpler and less prone to stuff going wrong as there are just fewer things to go wrong.

Agreed - the turnout solution is dead simple reliable - no moving parts since the turnouts can always be held in the only correct position needed by the springs. No electronics there - just the uncoupler (and recouple) problem. The only downside is width - it requires 2 more tracks (exit tracks is 3 there) than a transfer table style approach (only 1 exit track). Its all a trade off of width and length. And complexity.

Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post

Both rely on uncoupler sections of course, and I don't know how reliable those are, can you try one with your locos and coaches as a test?
You could perhaps build static uncouplers, - that are always 'up' - since you will always need them to uncouple as the loco passes over. It may be more reliable and silent. Perhaps with a slot in the middle for the loco slider to stay in contact wit the studs.

Fully automated coupling of a loco onto a train is extremely difficult to achieve. I have seen a video of it being achieved once only. Every train using a particular track would probably have to be the exact same length so that the loco can position itself exactly at the end of the train, and then you have to have the coupling engage without pushing train over the uncoupler at the other end. You may need LOTS of positioning feedback point to know where the loco is and where the end of the train is. I suspect that the coupling part will have to be a manual operation and the run around work is easily automated.


Brilliant... this may be the way to go for uncoupling. Indeed, every train that enters will always need the loco uncoupled, so a solution that can reliably uncouple the loco and doesn't move would be perfect.

Now that this though has come to mind, I can see a mechanically pivoting possibility that pushes up once the loco is in a specific position. The slider may be useful in pushing up the uncoupler based on forces needed. And if the locos are about the same length, that may even block the following cars from moving onto the uncoupler (which can be reset by a servo, after recoupling so that acts as a blocking assist for the re-coupling action taking place after the drive-round).

Capture.PNG

This may work as the passenger locomotives driving in would be nearly all the same length: 37576 (21.9cm), 37013 (18.9cm), 39414 (18cm), so if the lever action isn't driven by the slider, I could instead have the lever positioned to a side of the slider and triggered by an installed bump I place on the locomotives to ensure it is always the exact same distance from the back end of the train.. thus always uncoupling the locomotives. Will need to experiment. Certainly better idea than a bunch of electrically driven uncoupler tracks.

Yes, this would need lots of feedback on the positions of the ends of the cars and loco... but if its all inside the station, I can put sensors up higher (light barriers) that wont' be seen to assist. No doubt this is the engineering challenge of my layout plan. It saves me space if I can figure out how to do it, more other useful stuff on the layout. If that Germany guy got his revolver shadow station working, I figure I've got a decent chance at this as there is WAY less moving mechanical interaction.

Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post

What about pull/pull operations ? I have done that with my S-Bahn trains and is very prototypical.


Thats not prototypical nor would it be reliable. Imagine an InterCity passenger train being pushed from München up to Hamburg through Germany.

Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post

If some manual intervention is needed, what about a string pulled 'transfer table' that can be operated by hand to quickly move the loco in the building to an exit track? This may allow you to have a shorter moving track which will have more chance of fitting in the building. The exit track could also go out to an engine yard so that the 'new' loco approaches from the engine depot.


Great idea on exiting from the engine yard - the station building will most certainly have to be a hand built building portion or kit-bashing effort to custom fit the building in width and height (and 2 bldgs if the exit is out of a separate engine yard).


Its a chicken and egg problem for me.. because the solution I end up with will determine how much space I have to and thus may influence the overall layout design in a major way, so I need to figure this out before I do the layout and begin building it. On the plus side, this experimentation just takes some table space a few tracks and some fun engineering.
Toys of tin and wood rule!
---
My Layout Thread on marklin-users.net: InterCity 1-3-4
My YouTube Channel:
https://youtube.com/@intercity134
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Minok
Offline kiwiAlan  
#9 Posted : 30 November 2016 22:55:28(UTC)
kiwiAlan

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC)
Posts: 8,082
Location: ENGLAND, Didcot
Originally Posted by: Minok Go to Quoted Post
This is why the forum is so great, you get ideas you didn't think of.

Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post

What about pull/pull operations ? I have done that with my S-Bahn trains and is very prototypical.


Thats not prototypical nor would it be reliable. Imagine an InterCity passenger train being pushed from München up to Hamburg through Germany.



Err, yes that is exactly what they do. Marklin have modelled the cab control car to go with the IC coaches they do. I saw at least two IC cab control cars in the yard near the Koln Messe while travelling on the train to thew IMA show. Sorry, don't know the catalogue number for the car off hand, but I am sure someone here will know it.

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by kiwiAlan
Offline Minok  
#10 Posted : 30 November 2016 23:53:25(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,310
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted by: kiwiAlan Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Minok Go to Quoted Post
This is why the forum is so great, you get ideas you didn't think of.

Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post

What about pull/pull operations ? I have done that with my S-Bahn trains and is very prototypical.


Thats not prototypical nor would it be reliable. Imagine an InterCity passenger train being pushed from München up to Hamburg through Germany.



Err, yes that is exactly what they do. Marklin have modelled the cab control car to go with the IC coaches they do. I saw at least two IC cab control cars in the yard near the Koln Messe while travelling on the train to thew IMA show. Sorry, don't know the catalogue number for the car off hand, but I am sure someone here will know it.



Ah, I guess I should further clarify, I'm modeling 1970-1991; I don't recall ever seeing a BR 103 in ivory/red pushing a long IC train, other than in very short possible uses, but not on long runs, at least in that era (spent many summers at grandparents, whose house was 4 houses from a main north-south line I could watch (and get pfennigs flattened on) in the mid-late 70's and first half of the 80's. Back in the day when if you wanted fresh air, you slide down the top half of the window and minded the sign indicating you should not stick your head or hands out while the train is moving. A quick check on Mr Google indicates the control cab application to distance trains didn't start in Germany until 1995 on regional trains. It may be that the IC usage didn't happen till 1996.
Toys of tin and wood rule!
---
My Layout Thread on marklin-users.net: InterCity 1-3-4
My YouTube Channel:
https://youtube.com/@intercity134
Offline analogmike  
#11 Posted : 01 December 2016 04:09:47(UTC)
analogmike

United States   
Joined: 02/08/2014(UTC)
Posts: 737
Location: NEW JERSEY, USA
Hey,
I found some more.

Birmingham Snow Hill Station
gwrbsh1679.jpggwrbsh70.jpg

Moor Street Station Traverser
image054.jpggujmn.jpg

Location unknown
title211.jpg

Mikey
I love the smell of smoke fluid in the morning .
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by analogmike
Offline DaleSchultz  
#12 Posted : 01 December 2016 04:12:44(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
I think the prototype images suggest a great thing to model. I wonder if it was ever done in Germany also?
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
Offline Minok  
#13 Posted : 01 December 2016 22:11:22(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,310
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post
I think the prototype images suggest a great thing to model. I wonder if it was ever done in Germany also?


They apparently did. Thale had one until 2003 apparently ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thale_Hauptbahnhof )

You can see in Google Earth where it used to be ( https://goo.gl/maps/nTsHGkhHQ3K2 ):
Capture2.PNG
Toys of tin and wood rule!
---
My Layout Thread on marklin-users.net: InterCity 1-3-4
My YouTube Channel:
https://youtube.com/@intercity134
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Minok
Offline Minok  
#14 Posted : 01 December 2016 22:17:45(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,310
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
Another option with switches only - its going to come down to what real-estate will it actually take with real track and turnouts.

The one region is under the roof of the station (so you won't see it unless you look under or remove the roof (for maintenance designed to), while the side return track comes out of a separate building of a train shed, so the locos from the outer two platforms get returned out of the shed, while the inner two get returned by the other inner track (so it requires that track remain clear - so both center tracks both blocked for an incoming train until after the loco has been maneuvered out.

Again, the switches are always in one position held by the springs.

Capture.PNG

Summary
From this brainstorming, idea suggestion, and a Stummi thread from a few years back that describes the operations at the two end stations I want to have (though not mimic in size/scope/operation necessarily) there are several forms of prototypical operation:

  1. Train enters w loco at front, loco decouples (while passengers exit and enter), different loco attaches to back, train departs with new pulling loco, freed up loco goes to BW (this will require purchasing more locos <darn>)
  2. Train enters w loco at front, (passengers exit), train pushes out to staging station/track in the nearby area for re-arrangement, and is then pushed back in by the loco that's been relocated to the proper end (passengers enter),same loco pulls train out on new run
  3. Train enters w loco at front, (passengers exit), loco uncoupled, switching loco pulls the train out, freed loco drives out, switching loco puts cars back by platform, uncouples and goes away, main loco reattaches (passengers enter) and train pulled out by same loco. YouTube - München Operation
  4. Train enters w loco at front,( passengers exit), loco uncoupled and loco then exits out via switches through a siding track to drive around the cars, (passengers enter), same loco pulls the train out


So from the prototypical operations stand point, all varieties exist.

From the building my self based model that has such a station at the end (two actually, one at each end, just differing in scenery/backdrop/decoration).. I need to implement some form of operation in the space limits, seeking to automate (read: computer control) as much of this as possible (all ideally). Decoupling apparently works pretty reliably if you do it right (sequence of loco movements on the uncoupler), the re-coupling is the trickier bit... will have to test things.

What I'm then left with is deciding which operations are most reliably automated in the space I have, where I can (under the hidden area of the station under the removable roof) implement cheats to simplify/shorten the operations.


  • A transfer table lets me avoid having to have the switching track area before the station to facilitate the rearranging of the loco and cars, but adds the complexity of a moving component that has to be orchestrated - so engineering/sensing/control complexity added to reduce space requirement. But the complexity of moving the train around in the switching area before the station is eliminated (which would be more uncoupling/recoupling)
  • Using switches and a loop-around possibly, eliminates the transfer table complexity but may add more space needed in the hidden part of the station area.


In all cases the uncoupling-recoupling problem has to be solved. In all cases, the train coming in to the station and then exiting again will be a complex control system dance of rolling stock, loco(s), switches, and possibly other equipment to make it happen. Automation will be a challenge, but is theoretically attainable, if I can get recoupling to happen reliably. Otherwise automated trains arriving will get stacked at red lights coming into the station as I have to manually take control to recouple locos for exiting trains. On the plus side, the testing of "did it couple" should be easy to instrument for so the control software can try it, test for success, try again, and maybe after 2-3 fails throw an alert to the HUMAN to come help.

Clearly not a layout for one to sit there and watch the trains go round-and-round. Maybe the solution that requires the least amount of uncoupling/recoupling is the best.
Toys of tin and wood rule!
---
My Layout Thread on marklin-users.net: InterCity 1-3-4
My YouTube Channel:
https://youtube.com/@intercity134
Offline DaleSchultz  
#15 Posted : 01 December 2016 22:27:53(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
I meant as at the head of a passenger station....

I suspect the turning track will be large, but perhaps you can use the very small industrial curve, depends on your locos though.
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
Offline Minok  
#16 Posted : 01 December 2016 23:41:49(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,310
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post
I meant as at the head of a passenger station....

I suspect the turning track will be large, but perhaps you can use the very small industrial curve, depends on your locos though.


Yep... I think at this point I should try and model the non-table based solutions in layout software to see how much space it takes up with c-track.
Toys of tin and wood rule!
---
My Layout Thread on marklin-users.net: InterCity 1-3-4
My YouTube Channel:
https://youtube.com/@intercity134
Offline Shamu  
#17 Posted : 02 December 2016 04:28:39(UTC)
Shamu

Australia   
Joined: 12/07/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,068
Location: In a building site in Yeppoon
When I was thinking of doing a terminal I think a set of switches at the head added a good meter, maybe more ?

And a wye to facilitate reversing out was way out of the question, well for a 6 coach consist Blushing

I'll see if i still have the scarm file.

Sad when its cheaper to buy a new 29640 starter set from Germany than a CS2 on its own in Oz, welcome to the joys of Marklin down under .
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Shamu
Offline Minok  
#18 Posted : 02 December 2016 19:35:59(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,310
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted by: Shamu Go to Quoted Post
When I was thinking of doing a terminal I think a set of switches at the head added a good meter, maybe more ?

And a wye to facilitate reversing out was way out of the question, well for a 6 coach consist Blushing

I'll see if i still have the scarm file.



I'm hoping it wont be so bad as I'd be decoupling the locomotive and thus only need the depth to get the loco out and around.

If I can design an R1 curve around the back to facilitate freight traffic going past and coming back, I'll see if I can feed it into that (all hidden of course).

Looking at R0 K-track, the 295.4mm radius curve would create a 180 that would fit in the space... but can my passenger coaches and locos and freight cars make that tight of a bend (whats the length dimension I need to pay attention to between wheel sets to make an R0?)

....295.4*2 = 23 1/4 inches... how wide is ktrack across the sleepers?
Toys of tin and wood rule!
---
My Layout Thread on marklin-users.net: InterCity 1-3-4
My YouTube Channel:
https://youtube.com/@intercity134
Offline analogmike  
#19 Posted : 03 December 2016 03:00:57(UTC)
analogmike

United States   
Joined: 02/08/2014(UTC)
Posts: 737
Location: NEW JERSEY, USA
Hi Minok,
I remember doing a small temporary layout once.
I was forced to use 5120 M-track for a lower reverse loop.
All my E-loks/diesels with 4 wheel bogies rolled through it with no trouble at all.
Loks with 6 wheel bogies and big steamers were no good.
I wouldn't go anything tighter than that.

5120 004.JPG

Mikey
I love the smell of smoke fluid in the morning .
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by analogmike
Offline Minok  
#20 Posted : 03 December 2016 05:27:26(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,310
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted by: analogmike Go to Quoted Post

All my E-loks/diesels with 4 wheel bogies rolled through it with no trouble at all.
Loks with 6 wheel bogies and big steamers were no good.
I wouldn't go anything tighter than that.


Thanks. That's good to know most of my locos at 5 wheel bogies so that means I'm stuck with R1 curves at the tightest. Bummer but it's solvable. Just means id have to have track further into the room than I'd want.
Toys of tin and wood rule!
---
My Layout Thread on marklin-users.net: InterCity 1-3-4
My YouTube Channel:
https://youtube.com/@intercity134
Offline Shamu  
#21 Posted : 03 December 2016 06:07:18(UTC)
Shamu

Australia   
Joined: 12/07/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,068
Location: In a building site in Yeppoon
If you look at the bottom section of the mess 6x3.scarm (28kb) downloaded 16 time(s). you will see where i was playing around with how to extract loco's from a terminus.

It works out to just on the metre mark.

I'm inclined to have the straights between the uncoupler track and the points as I avoid loco's stopping on points etc, so i suppose you could shrink it by around 100 to 200mm but its still another 800mm you need to tag on.
Sad when its cheaper to buy a new 29640 starter set from Germany than a CS2 on its own in Oz, welcome to the joys of Marklin down under .
Users browsing this topic
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 © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.745 seconds.