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 michelvr  
#1 Posted : 09 November 2017 23:17:15(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
I'm still in the thought process of the design for my new station so I thought that I would post my ideas here and get your feedback.

As I am not a railroad logistics planner what do you think of my ideas? Obviously it needs some work but you'll get the picture.

thanks 2 users liked this useful post by michelvr
Offline kimballthurlow  
#2 Posted : 10 November 2017 00:09:43(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,655
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by: michelvr Go to Quoted Post
..... and get your feedback.

....Obviously it needs some work but you'll get the picture.



Hi Michel,

You have not told us what you are attempting to achieve.
And a question - the size of the square grids?

I can surmise that the upper and lower tracks are designed to bypass the station platforms, and are used for through trains.
If that is correct the plan makes sense to me.

Do you have plans for the stub tracks/sidings?

Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by kimballthurlow
Offline michelvr  
#3 Posted : 10 November 2017 01:33:50(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: michelvr Go to Quoted Post
..... and get your feedback.

....Obviously it needs some work but you'll get the picture.



Hi Michel,

You have not told us what you are attempting to achieve.
And a question - the size of the square grids?

Can't remember but I think it is 12 inches square. The Window's laptop is put away for the night.

I can surmise that the upper and lower tracks are designed to bypass the station platforms, and are used for through trains.
If that is correct the plan makes sense to me.

Yes that is correct.

Do you have plans for the stub tracks/sidings?

Just visualizing it in my minds eye for now.


Kimball


Hi Kimball,

Thank you for your interest in my post.

I've been a lost puppy with my layout for the last year or so and I'm in need of a revitalization so that's why I'm posting.

My plans are to completely utilize the benifits of C track and to make it work to keep me busy as I have lost interest in in my present station. I'm using Anyrail and the plan is scaled to my room. What you are seeing is only half of the 45 foot length of the room. I'll get back to you on the size of the square grids and my thoughts for making it more interesting.

Michel
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by michelvr
Offline RayF  
#4 Posted : 10 November 2017 09:57:22(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Hi Michel,

When planning a station bear in mind the width of the platforms you intend to use and their location. There are very few commercially available platform kits that fit between the standard track spacing of C track. If you intend to have all four of your central tracks served by platforms then I would suggest you open out the tracks to leave wider spacing.

I am offering this advice because on my layout I bought Faller platforms that fit between the inner and outer tracks, but when I originally fitted them at a good height for the passengers the platforms would foul most of the locomotives as they entered the station. I ended up having to lower the platforms to rail-top height, which is sometimes found in real life but for me is not so convincing.

I hope this makes sense to you... BigGrin

UserPostedImage
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
thanks 9 users liked this useful post by RayF
Offline michelvr  
#5 Posted : 10 November 2017 14:36:49(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Hi Ray,

Thank you for the advice!

My plans are to make the platforms out of balsa wood and paint them either a gray or tan colour.

By the way that's a beautiful picture of your station.

Regards,

Michel
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by michelvr
Offline DaleSchultz  
#6 Posted : 10 November 2017 21:23:24(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
I would prefer to see double slip turnouts instead of regular turnouts at both ends.
Furthermore the outer two tracks of the central 4 tracks would look better if they ran straight in and out and connected to the existing lines, rather than bulging back onto the inner two lines first. This would make them both longer and avoid s-bend travel.
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 michelvr  
#7 Posted : 10 November 2017 22:40:38(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Hello Dale,

I whole heartedly agree with the double slip turnouts instead of regular turnouts at both ends. But so far Marklin doesn't make the wide double slip switch in C track. I thought of using the regular but they seem too short.

I'll correct the outer two tracks of the central 4 tracks and make them straight in and out and connected to the existing lines, rather than bulging back onto the inner two lines first. Picture will be in my next post.

Thanks for the help.

Regards,

Michel
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by michelvr
Offline DaleSchultz  
#8 Posted : 10 November 2017 23:26:09(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
Gosh! no C-track double slips??? Not having used C-track I was not aware of that at all... ugh!

I look forward to the update...
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
Offline DaleSchultz  
#9 Posted : 10 November 2017 23:27:25(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
is K-track out of scope?
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
Offline michelvr  
#10 Posted : 11 November 2017 01:19:17(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post
is K-track out of scope?


Hi Dale,

The current station was done using K track but I'm not happy with what I created.

I've decided to replace the track with C track and make the track work float so that I can rearrange the plan.

With the capibilities of C track I'll be able to also add new items when funds permit. For example catenary, signals etc.

Michel
Offline jcrtrains  
#11 Posted : 11 November 2017 11:32:47(UTC)
jcrtrains

Canada   
Joined: 31/10/2009(UTC)
Posts: 597
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Ummmmmm, let me get this straight. You are ripping up all that beautifully ballasted and realistic K-track?
Offline baggio  
#12 Posted : 11 November 2017 14:49:56(UTC)
baggio

Canada   
Joined: 21/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,729
Location: Toronto
Hi, Ray:

I love your picture! Flapper

May I put it on my Facebook page?

Thanks.

Silvano
Offline michelvr  
#13 Posted : 11 November 2017 15:12:00(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Originally Posted by: jcrtrains Go to Quoted Post
Ummmmmm, let me get this straight. You are ripping up all that beautifully ballasted and realistic K-track?


I haven't as of yet but I'm thinking about redoing the station a lot lately. One bone of contenion is that I was not familiar with the functional abilities of Marklin track and now that I know more I would like to incorporate it into my layout. What I like about C track is that I would be able to change the station configuration with ease and add automation, signals and catenary to it as funds permit.

Yes that is C track on the left side of the main station. Using it to configure is interesting because it takes NO TIME whereas with K track you invest time to do it!


thanks 4 users liked this useful post by michelvr
Offline kimballthurlow  
#14 Posted : 12 November 2017 01:41:32(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,655
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by: michelvr Go to Quoted Post
Ummmmmm, ..... What I like about C track is that I would be able to change the station configuration with ease and add automation, signals and catenary to it as funds permit.
......


Hi Michel,

You are SOOO right about C track.
(Tongue in cheek mode - on) With that attitude you should be able to get a job in the marketing department at Maerklin. (-off)

Overall, I believe you will have a lot of fun with C track, it is immensely useable, and practical for creating all sorts of scenarios.
It appears you have a good sense of train control, and what is required for station movements.

UserPostedImage

I have assumed that the centre of the three main lines at either end can be used for either direction, but the outer lines are strictly uni-directional.
In the above plan, I have encircled two sets of double turnouts.
In my opinion, the right-hand set is redundant.
But you may have other ideas about train movements which prove me wrong.

UserPostedImage

In this diagram above I indicate in yellow the turnouts which can be discarded altogether (in my opinion).
Saves money.
Again, you may have other ideas about train movements.

Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by kimballthurlow
Offline applor  
#15 Posted : 12 November 2017 02:22:17(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,653
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Originally Posted by: michelvr Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post
is K-track out of scope?


Hi Dale,

The current station was done using K track but I'm not happy with what I created.

I've decided to replace the track with C track and make the track work float so that I can rearrange the plan.

With the capibilities of C track I'll be able to also add new items when funds permit. For example catenary, signals etc.

Michel


Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
modelling era IIIa (1951-1955) Germany
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by applor
Offline baggio  
#16 Posted : 12 November 2017 07:17:17(UTC)
baggio

Canada   
Joined: 21/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,729
Location: Toronto
Applor: "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Confused Confused
Online PMPeter  
#17 Posted : 12 November 2017 15:35:14(UTC)
PMPeter

Canada   
Joined: 04/04/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,273
Location: Port Moody, BC
I agree with Applor. Think real hard before getting rid of the K track. For a permanent layout the K track has a lot more flexibility and adds a lot more realism.

For my layout I have gone the other way. I started with a lot of C track and have removed the majority of it and replaced it with K track. The only C track I have left is in yard areas and I am much happier now.

I agree that C track is great for testing out configurations, but once you are happy with that, making it permanent with K track in my opinion is the way to go.

Peter
Offline michelvr  
#18 Posted : 12 November 2017 16:03:30(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Hello Applor and Peter,

I have not removed any K track as of yet, as I need to purchase the rest of the C track to make up the main station.

When I first started Marklin in 2012 I bought enough C track to make the main station but decided to use k track instead. Now five years later I'm thinking of trying again with C track. Presently I only have enough C track to make a couple of sidings and to test the viability with signals and catenary.

This hobby is alway moving forward and since I'm not resistant to change I'll post a new picture of the first pass with the scraper lifting up the K track when I'm ready but today is not the day.

Now if someone would come over and help me with this please be my guest. Being a lone wolf in this hobby is fun as you do what you want but I learnt that understanding how things are done correctly is very important. Posting here on the forum and getting advice from members really helps in my decisions. Please keep your replys coming!
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by michelvr
Offline Roland  
#19 Posted : 13 November 2017 03:51:58(UTC)
Roland

Canada   
Joined: 09/11/2013(UTC)
Posts: 332
Location: Toronto, Canada
Originally Posted by: michelvr Go to Quoted Post
The current station was done using K track but I'm not happy with what I created.

I've decided to replace the track with C track and make the track work float so that I can rearrange the plan.

With the capibilities of C track I'll be able to also add new items when funds permit. For example catenary, signals etc.

Michel


If you're not happy with the current track plan, have you considered re-building it with K-track? You really can't replace slim double slips ;-)

How often do you anticipate re-arranging your layout in future? If you re-build it now to the way you like, do you really think you'll change it up again regularly? If you just had a couple of ovals I could understand, but having such a large and beautiful layout, I would think it is as more of a long-term project.

Maybe I'm missing something but why can't you add catenary and signals to K-track?
My Layout Build | Märklin CS3+ | K-track | Merkur | Viessmann | LDT | iTrain | Modeling DB + SBB
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Roland
Offline michelvr  
#20 Posted : 13 November 2017 17:27:15(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Hi Roland,

I'm actually very happy with the thought of switching the tracks from K to C for my station track plan.

On my layout the K track flex has it's place with the sweeping curves and long runs but the K track turnouts are going to go.

I could actually write up a compelling article why K track turnouts are dated but that's for another day.

Being well versed in everything 2 rail and not being wise in Marklin I make omissions that can't be easily corrected. Actually I wasn't even familiar with the outer rail contact track until latter. Now that I am a little bit smarter I want to correct the deficiencies before I start with the detailing of the station.

One thing I overlooked when I started making my layout was planning for the addition of catenary and signals to K-track. With C track it's all there in the book so to speak.

Now for the missing link, is Marklin ever going to make the slim double slip switch?

As we all know there is always something missing on a layout and rearranging to make it better is always a good thing to do. Keeps your mind clear and not on a one way track.BigGrin

Regards,

Michel
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by michelvr
Online PMPeter  
#21 Posted : 13 November 2017 18:25:00(UTC)
PMPeter

Canada   
Joined: 04/04/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,273
Location: Port Moody, BC
Originally Posted by: michelvr Go to Quoted Post
Hi Roland,

One thing I overlooked when I started making my layout was planning for the addition of catenary and signals to K-track. With C track it's all there in the book so to speak.



Hi Michel,

What am I missing? Why would you have difficulty adding catenary and signals to K track? Unless you made your parallel track spacing too narrow to fit the masts, there should be no difference in adding catenary and signals to any M, K, or C track system. However, if it is a spacing issue, then that is a layout design issue, not a K track issue. Perhaps you can clarify.

Cheers
Peter
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by PMPeter
Offline Minok  
#22 Posted : 13 November 2017 19:50:12(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,310
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post
Gosh! no C-track double slips??? Not having used C-track I was not aware of that at all... ugh!

I look forward to the update...


Heh?

Märklin 24620
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 Minok  
#23 Posted : 13 November 2017 19:58:02(UTC)
Minok

United States   
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,310
Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
Originally Posted by: jcrtrains Go to Quoted Post
You are ripping up all that beautifully ballasted and realistic K-track?


Well thats all a matter of what is realistic enough for the individual - its a personal taste question, not a universal truth.

The code 100 height of K-track is an issue to some. The soldering on of wires in visible ways (or the not insignificant work of soldering to the bottom of K-track and added problem of k-track soldering) and the rail joiners, also aesthetically an issue for some.

C-track has the problem of the uniform high ballast base that has rounded edges on the ballast (needed to release from the molds I suspect), and the less pronounced track ties. As well as the not as complete selection of slimmer turnout variety, and the lack of flex-track.

A modeler needs to know whats most important to them. If you see yourself re-configuring every once in a while not dealing with the cork underlay and soldering of K-track as well as the code-9 rail height of c-track may be an ideal match.
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 michelvr  
#24 Posted : 13 November 2017 20:13:00(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Originally Posted by: PMPeter Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: michelvr Go to Quoted Post
Hi Roland,

One thing I overlooked when I started making my layout was planning for the addition of catenary and signals to K-track. With C track it's all there in the book so to speak.



Hi Michel,

What am I missing? Why would you have difficulty adding catenary and signals to K track? Unless you made your parallel track spacing too narrow to fit the masts, there should be no difference in adding catenary and signals to any M, K, or C track system. However, if it is a spacing issue, then that is a layout design issue, not a K track issue. Perhaps you can clarify.

Cheers
Peter


Hi Peter,

I can honestly say I did not do my homework with Marklin when I was building the station with K track.

I have't tried using any catenary or signals for K track and chances are it will work. But since I'm planning on using C track I will not bother trying.

Regards,

Michel
Offline michelvr  
#25 Posted : 13 November 2017 20:14:53(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Originally Posted by: Minok Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: jcrtrains Go to Quoted Post
You are ripping up all that beautifully ballasted and realistic K-track?


A modeler needs to know whats most important to them. If you see yourself re-configuring every once in a while not dealing with the cork underlay and soldering of K-track as well as the code-9 rail height of c-track may be an ideal match.


Well written!

Regards,

Michel

Offline kimballthurlow  
#26 Posted : 13 November 2017 22:01:41(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,655
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by: michelvr Go to Quoted Post
Hi Roland,

I'm actually very happy with the thought of switching the tracks from K to C for my station track plan.

On my layout the K track flex has it's place with the sweeping curves and long runs but the K track turnouts are going to go.

I could actually write up a compelling article why K track turnouts are dated but that's for another day.

Being well versed in everything 2 rail and not being wise in Marklin I make omissions that can't be easily corrected. Actually I wasn't even familiar with the outer rail contact track until latter. Now that I am a little bit smarter I want to correct the deficiencies before I start with the detailing of the station.

One thing I overlooked when I started making my layout was planning for the addition of catenary and signals to K-track. With C track it's all there in the book so to speak.

Now for the missing link, is Marklin ever going to make the slim double slip switch?

As we all know there is always something missing on a layout and rearranging to make it better is always a good thing to do. Keeps your mind clear and not on a one way track.BigGrin

Regards,

Michel


Hi Michel,
Well said.
Your layout plans are fine without any double-slips.
While they are practical in many situations ( I use them) they are not mandatory, and your plan is practical without them.

Kimball

HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by kimballthurlow
Offline michelvr  
#27 Posted : 13 November 2017 22:59:25(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Hi Kimball,

I'm envious of your location as I was there last month and I miss Australia so much. Right now we're having to live indoors as the temperature lowers to freezing and beyond, hence my many post lately!

This is model railroading season for us and I'm itchy to get building again. I'll post a new main station picture from Anyrail and I'll incorporate changes to reflect what I have planned.

I'm thinking of using the slim crossing as a substatute for the non existent slim double slip switch which I hope Marklin will produce some day.

Regards,

Mchel
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by michelvr
Offline RayF  
#28 Posted : 15 November 2017 19:55:58(UTC)
RayF

Gibraltar   
Joined: 14/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 15,838
Location: Gibraltar, Europe
Originally Posted by: baggio Go to Quoted Post
Hi, Ray:

I love your picture! Flapper

May I put it on my Facebook page?

Thanks.

Silvano


Hi Silvano,

Sorry I took a long time to answer.

Please feel free to use my photo on your facebook page if you so wish, and thanks for the compliment! Smile ThumpUp
Ray
Mostly Marklin.Selection of different eras and European railways
Small C track layout, control by MS2, 100+ trains but run 4-5 at a time.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by RayF
Offline baggio  
#29 Posted : 15 November 2017 20:01:58(UTC)
baggio

Canada   
Joined: 21/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,729
Location: Toronto
Hi, Ray:

Does the permission apply to a few other pictures of your layout? I think people may really enjoy them.

I would give you credit, of course, and refer to you as "Ray" from Gibraltar.

Thank you.

Silvano
Offline applor  
#30 Posted : 16 November 2017 00:05:57(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,653
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Originally Posted by: michelvr Go to Quoted Post

I could actually write up a compelling article why K track turnouts are dated but that's for another day.


Not sure how K track turnouts are dated compared to C track, unless you have the older style wide radius turnouts (227x) with moveable frog that had issues?

In fact the advantage with K track turnouts is the ease in which you can install servos, making operations far more reliable than the solenoid motors.

Also, I like your new station design without double slips. Definitely not if you go ahead with C track, since there is no wide radius C track double slip (as already discussed)
modelling era IIIa (1951-1955) Germany
Offline michelvr  
#31 Posted : 16 November 2017 15:24:59(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Originally Posted by: applor Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: michelvr Go to Quoted Post

I could actually write up a compelling article why K track turnouts are dated but that's for another day.


Not sure how K track turnouts are dated compared to C track, unless you have the older style wide radius turnouts (227x) with moveable frog that had issues?

In fact the advantage with K track turnouts is the ease in which you can install servos, making operations far more reliable than the solenoid motors.

Also, I like your new station design without double slips. Definitely not if you go ahead with C track, since there is no wide radius C track double slip (as already discussed)


Hello Applor,

Once I have some time, hopefully later this week I'll write a compelling article on K track turnouts. I've beeen using 36 K track turnouts on my layout for the last 5 years with surprisingly mixed results.

Thanks for liking the new station design. I'll be making corrections (thanks Kimball) and adding uncoupler pieces to it so that it will be a fully working station.

Regards,

Michel

Edited by user 17 November 2017 02:12:28(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by michelvr
Offline michelvr  
#32 Posted : 18 November 2017 00:16:03(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Finally some time so here's an update of the Station, as per Kimball's suggestion.

Would you say this s a logical way of creating a track plan for a station?

I still have to insert the uncouplier tracks.

Michel


Offline DaleSchultz  
#33 Posted : 18 November 2017 02:42:22(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
if possible, I would still try to run the topmost track of the middle four tracks straight out at both ends.
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by DaleSchultz
Offline Roland  
#34 Posted : 18 November 2017 05:23:47(UTC)
Roland

Canada   
Joined: 09/11/2013(UTC)
Posts: 332
Location: Toronto, Canada
In addition to Dale's suggestion, what do you think about straightening out the lines on each end of the station just to eliminate the S curves? Otherwise looks good to me! Looking forward to seeing your build progress.

UserPostedImage
My Layout Build | Märklin CS3+ | K-track | Merkur | Viessmann | LDT | iTrain | Modeling DB + SBB
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Roland
Offline michelvr  
#35 Posted : 20 November 2017 23:32:36(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
So here am looking over my track plan and I'm wondering is this how it would be designed in real life?


On my plan you will notice 2 squares which are actually the beams in the basement. This is the reason I made a slight bend in the station approaches.

What I'm thinking is, is this the best use of space for a station.

If you have any ideas to improve what I created please let me know.

Regards,

Michel
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by michelvr
Offline kimballthurlow  
#36 Posted : 21 November 2017 00:33:10(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 6,655
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by: michelvr Go to Quoted Post
So here am looking over my track plan and I'm wondering is this how it would be designed in real life?


On my plan you will notice 2 squares which are actually the beams in the basement. This is the reason I made a slight bend in the station approaches.

What I'm thinking is, is this the best use of space for a station.

If you have any ideas to improve what I created please let me know.

Regards,

Michel


Hi Michel,
In the real world, engineers have to design station environs with all sorts of constraints, such as availability of land, adjacent properties or fixtures, and natural ground contours.
So in my opinion the use of curves might be for real reasons.

Anyway, just wondering why the original incoming three main lines on the right is now reduced to two.
(Can happen in the real world too.)

Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by kimballthurlow
Offline michelvr  
#37 Posted : 21 November 2017 14:57:01(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Hi Kimball,

Thank you for your help.

The right main line will connect to the existing K track flex. I still have to work on that part of the track plan.

I'll keep you posted with an updated track plan later this week.

Michel

Edited by user 21 November 2017 22:00:02(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline DaleSchultz  
#38 Posted : 21 November 2017 22:08:19(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow Go to Quoted Post

In the real world, engineers have to design station environs with all sorts of constraints, such as availability of land, adjacent properties or fixtures, and natural ground contours.
So in my opinion the use of curves might be for real reasons.
Kimball


I agree fully with that, but... I will add that if the tracks are not straight, the reason for the curve has to be evident, in the form of a hill, valley, building that could not be moved (rare), etc.

I saw a video of a model train layout this week in which a train could be seen weaving its way across a flat landscape, for absolutely no good reason in terms of prototype. It just looks like shit (to me).
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
Offline Bones  
#39 Posted : 13 December 2017 02:28:28(UTC)
Bones

Australia   
Joined: 15/09/2015(UTC)
Posts: 105
Location: Queensland
I just thought I'd add my 2 cent's worth

While I didn't like the C track at first I eventually came to like it

There were some troubles with the slider's on the tin plate carriages but I sorted that out eventually

I will reuse it but the only draw back with it is it doesn't have exact 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 sections so you need to be very careful with your plans

Wink

Edited by user 12 January 2018 12:44:13(UTC)  | Reason: Typo

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Bones
Offline michelvr  
#40 Posted : 13 December 2017 16:16:29(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
Originally Posted by: Bones Go to Quoted Post
I just thought I'd add my 2 cent's worth

While I didn't like the C track at first I eventually came to like it

There were some troubles with the slider's on the tin plate carriages but I sorted that out eventually

Some I will reuse it but the only draw back with it is it doesn't have exact 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 sections so you need to be very careful with your plans

Wink


I was of the same opinion in 2012 when I bought a large quantity of Marklin C track. After further study I realized that I could not produce the track plan because of the missing pieces. So I sold the Marklin C track and bought Marklin K track instead!

Now here I sit present day which is FIVE YEARS LATER writing to you and posting my plan that is using C track.

As you wrote, "While I didn't like the Marklin C track at first I eventually came to like it" I can say that I always liked it and hoped that the missing pieces would be available.

As mentioned it's now five years later and we do have the NEW Marklin 24771/24772 wide curved turnouts!

I'm quite sure everyone is hoping for the missing wide double slip and the other missing pieces.

The Marklin C track program started in 1999 and now it's 2017,

I do believe in miracles!

Check out my post https://www.marklin-user...s-right-before-Christmas

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Michel
Offline michelvr  
#41 Posted : 13 December 2017 16:51:00(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,287
I forgot to mention that I bought my supply of Marklin C tracks that are needed to make the station.

But I'm hopeful that we'll see new Marklin C track pieces in the new year!
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 1.290 seconds.