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 km90  
#1 Posted : 13 August 2025 20:24:25(UTC)
km90

Sweden   
Joined: 12/02/2024(UTC)
Posts: 19
Location: Stockholm
I started on a track plan based on this layout:
UserPostedImage

So far I've managed to this. However, I'm kindly asking the experts (I'm a complete novice) for any ideas and/or help with the following items:
- Any ways to get the inclines between the levels closer to 3% (Right now around 3,5%)
- Get track 2 & 3 connected on the right side so both tracks can be used for trains going through, and not using R1
- To get the slim turnouts at the left part of the station

If it helps, it should be fine to widen the layout a bit.

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

Thanks in advance for any help or tips! :)
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by km90
Offline Alsterstreek  
#2 Posted : 14 August 2025 10:52:11(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Germany   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,912
Location: Hybrid Home
Nice concept, but quite a challenge for a beginner.

Originally Posted by: km90 Go to Quoted Post
I started on a track plan based on this layout:
I have seen this one before. Is this your own image?

Originally Posted by: km90 Go to Quoted Post
- Any ways to get the inclines between the levels closer to 3% (Right now around 3,5%)
For example, the left curve should reach the rear edge of the layout as shown in the first image (but not replicated in the track plans), which extends the track length and thus reduces the gradient.

Originally Posted by: km90 Go to Quoted Post
- Get track 2 & 3 connected on the right side so both tracks can be used for trains going through, and not using R1
Do you mean that you want to avoid a 24671 turnout?

Originally Posted by: km90 Go to Quoted Post
- To get the slim turnouts at the left part of the station
Well, the 246xx turnouts are not per se bad if used in „proper“ setting, depending on viewing angle and embedding in other C track segments. I understand your concerns. However, I doubt that everything can be conveyed in a „crash course“.

Originally Posted by: km90 Go to Quoted Post
If it helps, it should be fine to widen the layout a bit.
The double-track line exiting the station the left side is winding itself down to a reverse loop, but where is the double-track line exiting the station on the right side going to?


BTW, here is a similar design by a German Stummiforum member - see post #38:

https://www.stummiforum....-Gleis-1.html#msg2822885
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline km90  
#3 Posted : 14 August 2025 11:50:04(UTC)
km90

Sweden   
Joined: 12/02/2024(UTC)
Posts: 19
Location: Stockholm
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Nice concept, but quite a challenge for a beginner.
I have seen this one before. Is this your own image?


No, I found it on Stummiforum and used it for inspiration.

Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
For example, the left curve should reach the rear edge of the layout as shown in the first image (but not replicated in the track plans), which extends the track length and thus reduces the gradient.


Yes, I'm aware of that from the original plan. My idea is to have the train coming back in a reverse loop (after been in a shadow station) so trains are coming back the way the came from. :)

Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Do you mean that you want to avoid a 24671 turnout?


Exactly. :)

Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Well, the 246xx turnouts are not per se bad if used in „proper“ setting, depending on viewing angle and embedding in other C track segments. I understand your concerns. However, I doubt that everything can be conveyed in a „crash course“.


I tried a bit and managed to get a few of them replaced, but would naturally be nice to replace all (or almost all) replaced. I'm open to the idea of re-arranging the station entry.

Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
The double-track line exiting the station the left side is winding itself down to a reverse loop, but where is the double-track line exiting the station on the right side going to?


It's also going to a reverse loop (shadow station).


thanks 1 user liked this useful post by km90
Offline Alsterstreek  
#4 Posted : 14 August 2025 23:50:39(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Germany   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,912
Location: Hybrid Home
Originally Posted by: km90 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Do you mean that you want to avoid a 24671 turnout?


Exactly. :)

Why, as it would not be not visible in the concealed area? I would rather be concerned with the performance of the foreseen 24771 turnouts on a slope.

Originally Posted by: km90 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Well, the 246xx turnouts are not per se bad if used in „proper“ setting, depending on viewing angle and embedding in other C track segments. I understand your concerns. However, I doubt that everything can be conveyed in a „crash course“.


I tried a bit and managed to get a few of them replaced, but would naturally be nice to replace all (or almost all) replaced. I'm open to the idea of re-arranging the station entry.

Then one of my ideas might serve as food for thought - see post #180: https://www.marklin-user...d-innovations#post614376

Edited by user 15 August 2025 12:56:10(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline Alsterstreek  
#5 Posted : 16 August 2025 15:33:10(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Germany   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,912
Location: Hybrid Home
The layout dimensions seem to be 180 x 340 cm. Thus, there is enough space for this approach for creating longer ramps in order to reduce the gradient.
2025km90principle1.png
NB regarding the depth: Human arms are not long enough to reach 180 cm.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline km90  
#6 Posted : 17 August 2025 16:43:22(UTC)
km90

Sweden   
Joined: 12/02/2024(UTC)
Posts: 19
Location: Stockholm
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Why, as it would not be not visible in the concealed area? I would rather be concerned with the performance of the foreseen 24771 turnouts on a slope.


I'm running trains with long passenger cars and after reading on some forums, those cars don't really like R1. That's the only reason, nothing about the aesthetics. :)

Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Well, the 246xx turnouts are not per se bad if used in „proper“ setting, depending on viewing angle and embedding in other C track segments. I understand your concerns. However, I doubt that everything can be conveyed in a „crash course“.


Obviously there needs to be some compromises in a smallish layout like this, but the fewer the better I suppose. :)

Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Then one of my ideas might serve as food for thought - see post #180: https://www.marklin-user...d-innovations#post614376


I tried following this a bit, but got lost really fast.. If I could get concrete directions (for example a track plan to follow that suits my layout) would be much appreciated. It looks really cool though!

And to answer your point from your other post. The layout right now is 325*175cm. I'm aware that 175 is too deep in general, however the layout will be on wheels so can be reached from all 4 sides if necessary.
Offline Alsterstreek  
#7 Posted : 17 August 2025 20:16:30(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Germany   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,912
Location: Hybrid Home
Originally Posted by: km90 Go to Quoted Post
I tried following this a bit, but got lost really fast.. If I could get concrete directions (for example a track plan to follow that suits my layout) would be much appreciated. It looks really cool though!

Yes, I got the hint - see track plan below: "level 0" track in red, 175 x 350 cm surface, maximum gradient 3%, station through tracks at least 170 cm long between turnouts, stub tracks placed at will, minimum radius = R2, no turnout on a slope, "trouble-free" standard R2 turnouts in concealed area, 24912 segments used for curve easements in visible areas.
2025km90-v1b.jpg
Personally, I am not impressed by the performance of three-way turnouts or wide curve turnouts. That's why I avoided the former and placed the latter (one specimen only) at the front in case excruciating troubles require easy access; the return loops can be adjusted to your needs, e.g. by adding shadow station sidings.
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline Alsterstreek  
#8 Posted : 17 August 2025 20:46:44(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Germany   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,912
Location: Hybrid Home
A close-up view of the the station throat - see below. The C track slack accomodates the small gap visible in the track plan.
2025km90throat-v1.jpg
Depending on the purpose of the stub tracks on the right side of the station, a switching lead could be added in the front after replacing the far right 24611 turnout by a double-slip turnout in order to prevent shunting maneuvers to foul the main line.
thanks 4 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline km90  
#9 Posted : 17 August 2025 21:45:38(UTC)
km90

Sweden   
Joined: 12/02/2024(UTC)
Posts: 19
Location: Stockholm
Wow, that's really cool! Thanks a lot for the ideas, it definitely gave me some solutions and inspiration. :) Supermega thank you!

Is it possible to get a copy of the Railmodeller-file? :)
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by km90
Offline Alsterstreek  
#10 Posted : 17 August 2025 23:38:43(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Germany   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,912
Location: Hybrid Home
PM sent.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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 © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.632 seconds.