Is this a silly layout?

Skip, I'm assuming this is FasTrack?

Sorry!  I should have stated...  Yes, this is FasTrack.

I don't know if this helps see the track a little better...

Hello Mr. Skip!

Rubbish that notion of rubbish!  I'm no expert, but your track plan looks fairly entertaining to me.  I could easily sit back, relax, and watch a couple of trains tick off some scale miles on that plan for quite some time every evening while sipping on tasty beverage. 

Like you say though, just a matter of making sure everything fits properly.

Second what Paul said....looks entertaining and busy.....good job!  .......now let’s see the earth move and tracks laid......Pat

Skipdup, I tried to piece this together in SCARM.  It worked okay for me.  The only place I ran into a problem was the left inside curve leading up to the elevation.  I couldn't get that to match up exactly but that's minor.  Do you have the track already?  There are some spots where you can save $.  For instance the curve on the far right has six O36 22.5's.  You can sub out three O36 45's.

Looks good to me.  

Go go for it and post pics of the finished product. 

I would shorten the inside lower loop shown on the right by 4 1/2", to provide a few inches clearance instead of a couple inches overlap with the upper loop. That would enable the inside upper loop to take a more gradual incline heading up toward the bridges.

beachhead2 posted:

Skipdup, I tried to piece this together in SCARM.  It worked okay for me.  The only place I ran into a problem was the left inside curve leading up to the elevation.  I couldn't get that to match up exactly but that's minor.  Do you have the track already?  There are some spots where you can save $.  For instance the curve on the far right has six O36 22.5's.  You can sub out three O36 45's.

Thank you very much!!  No, I don't have the track yet.  I tried to consolidate as much as I could see into bigger pieces...  Missed all this 22.5's!  Thanks for pointing out!

Thanks all!  

I wish I could remember who to thank...  as this is a mod of at least one plan I found on here (maybe several).  I can't even remember anymore.  Hopefully plagiarism isn't frowned upon.  

I think I'm going to do it.  If I change my mind later, I'm sure lots of the track could be re-used in whatever config I changed to...

Only thing holding me back is that darn NW Minnesota layout I saw.  That thing is just crazy good.

- Skip

bobdavisnpf posted:

I would shorten the inside lower loop shown on the right by 4 1/2", to provide a few inches clearance instead of a couple inches overlap with the upper loop. That would enable the inside upper loop to take a more gradual incline heading up toward the bridges.

Is it the highlighted loop you would shorten?

Thanks!

Yes, that's 

Skipdup posted:

bobdavisnpf posted:

I would shorten the inside lower loop shown on the right by 4 1/2", to provide a few inches clearance instead of a couple inches overlap with the upper loop. That would enable the inside upper loop to take a more gradual incline heading up toward the bridges.

Is it the highlighted loop you would shorten?

Thanks!

Yes, that's the one. You've got a 4 1/2" straight on the outside loop (not highlighted but visible in that snip), and a 4 1/2" straight on the inside loop off (to the left of that snip).

10-4.  We played around with that section.  Wife liked it ducking under the raised section of track going to the turn-around.  That should all (from bridge, right turn, jog back, and the turn-around) be at a constant height...  going to look at it again.  

Thanks again!

Skipdup posted:

10-4.  We played around with that section.  Wife liked it ducking under the raised section of track going to the turn-around.  That should all (from bridge, right turn, jog back, and the turn-around) be at a constant height...  going to look at it again.  

Thanks again!

It'll be easy enough to try it both ways, once you've got the track pieces on hand.

Nice design, btw. You've got lots of great running to look forward to!

Looks like fun under the tree to me. You've only got 15 days left. I'd be getting busy if I were you.

You're lucky that your wife wants a train under the tree. My original plan was for a circle of 036 or 048. I lost that argument this year. 

Anyone recommend a power supply for a setup like this?  Already seems the one that came with the PE struggles if I add the two additional lighted cars.  

For the foreseeable future, probably just a couple trains and a few houses w/ LED lights.

Thanks,
Skip

Recommendation #1 would be a power feed for every 6 track joints. Just a SWAG, but maybe as many as dozen feeders.

If you're running command control only (including LionChief) a MTH Z1000 brick should be more than adequate. Another inexpensive option would be a Lionel P-135 (6-12866). For running conventional, a MRC Pure Power AH501 would be a decent choice. 

What transformer do you have now? The newest come with a wall wart. The oldest came with an early CW80. I honestly cannot recall a PE set that came with what I would regard as a "good" transformer.

Yes, just the included wall wart that came with the PE set.  

I would probably plan on running strictly LionChief in the future.  Maybe adding a protosound 3.0 (already have, but not using) if they're compatible.

Thanks,
Skip

Grade from crossover up to bridge might be too steep, even if the other track drops.

I like it.  A lot of possibilities and action.

I once had a layout in two rooms with just four loops of track.  There were enough switch tracks to allow a train to go from the outside loop into the inner loop and back out again.  You could put a train on any track, start it up, step back, and watch it continuously work its way into the inner loop and back out to the outer loop.   For me it was relaxing

Skipdup posted:

Yes, just the included wall wart that came with the PE set.  

You can run LionChief and DCS concurrently. An inexpensive way to start is with DCS Remote Commander.

The wall wart is adequate for the original 40x60 loop and three cars. More than that, and you're on your own. 

Climbing the grade takes more power. The steeper the grade, the more power it takes.

Here is a version with a 3.2% grade.

The outside route is O60 minimum with O72 easements.   O60 turnouts.  The O36 loop-to-loop has O72 and O60 easements.   Your trains should run smooth and gracefully through this layout, even with the tight O36 minimums.

Ken-Oscale posted:

Here is a version with a 3.2% grade.

The outside route is O60 minimum with O72 easements.   O60 turnouts.  The O36 loop-to-loop has O72 and O60 easements.   Your trains should run smooth and gracefully through this layout, even with the tight O36 minimums.

That is amazing.  I think I can re-create that.

Are the switches O72?  Are switches the same as easements?

If so, those parts wouldn't be wasted when I try and re-create your NW Minnesota plan - maybe next year...  

Thank you!!

I re-read and saw you already specified turn-outs...  sorry...  i should read better.  

Agree with @Mixed Freight - two reversing loops and plenty of action!

Silly?

Ken-Oscale posted:

Here is a version with a 3.2% grade.

The outside route is O60 minimum with O72 easements.   O60 turnouts.  The O36 loop-to-loop has O72 and O60 easements.   Your trains should run smooth and gracefully through this layout, even with the tight O36 minimums.

Ken-Oscale- I sent you an email a couple days ago.  Did you happen to see it?  Just making sure spam didn't eat it...

Well, I tried to replicate Ken's, while adding O72 turn-outs.  I've gotten close.  Not nearly as clean as Ken's...

Here's the scarm file if anyone's interested...

Skidup, I notice that you are not using the 1-3/8" fitters with roadbed trimmed, for the O60 turnouts.   The fitters are included with the turnouts.   It is usually possible to trim sections of fastrack to do without the fitters, but its harder when two turnouts meet together - better in that case to use the 1-3/8" without roadbed on each side in order to make the junction.  -Ken  email reply sent.

Here is the AnyRail file for anyone interested.   You can install the demo version of AnyRail and open the file to look at each piece of track - just put the mouse on a section and at the bottom of the window it says what the section is.

re: power supplies...  just making sure I understand what I need to...

LionChief get's it's commands wirelessly and ProtoSound gets from a signal sent through the track, right?

So, I would need either a MTH Z-1000 (just the brick, without controller) or Lionel PH-135, plugged into a DCS Remote Commander, and then hardwire that into my Fastrack.  Right?

Anyone know if the PH-135 will plug directly into the DCS Commander directly?  Or are plug adapters needed?

Also, I (might) vaguely remember reading, or seeing a YouTube video, where Lionel (???) stated you needed to run the PowerHouse with the TMCC Lock On house thingy - for the short circuit protection - or something???

I don't imagine I'll ever need to run conventional.  I'm pretty happy with LionChief (and the PS 3.0 engine I already have).

Thanks Much!
Skip

Skip, here is a revision of my earlier track plan that incorporates vertical easements (inspired by another thread here on the forum).   The idea is to create an easement in the change of grade, in order to avoid the sharp change in grade from 0% to 3.2%   So that locomotives will have less time when a driving wheel is "lifted" above the rail for a short distance (thus reducing traction) over the track section joints.  Long ridged-wheelbase steamers will have the most difficulty with sharp vertical transitions, while two-axle trucks will tend to always have all four wheels in contact with the rail head.   

The short sections will gradually increase in grade when going from 0% to 3.2% (and the reverse when going from 3.2% back to 0% at the top of the grade).   Theoretically, with four short sections between 0% and 3.2%, each section will change by roughly 0.64%:  from 0%:  0.64%; 1.28%; 1.92%; 2.56%;  3.2%.  [You would not need to be as mathematically precise as this implies, this just shows how a vertical transition works.]

Incidentally, my Lionchief Plus FT ABA set is strong at climbing grades, in addition to motors in all units driving all 12 axles, in two-axle trucks, there are traction tires on each unit, and in an un-advertised feature, all three units have strong Magnatraction on all axles (I tested, and previously reported this feature here on the forum).

One could try to bend vertically, a long section of track (like a O48 30-degree curve) to form a vertical easement.   For a track system not composed of ridged plastic roadbed, of course.   This would be challenging to do, but possible.   Perhaps simpler in the long run to use four short track sections to build the easement as I have shown.   Its even better to use long sections of track for the vertical easement, like full O72 sections, but this track plan does not allow for this wide a diameter.

There is a trade-off between the length of the vertical easements, and the grade between easements.   In the plan shown, the addition of vertical easements increased the "ruling-grade" between the easements from 3.2% to 3.3%, a worthwhile trade-off in this case.

Finally, there is nothing mandated about using four sections of sectional track for a vertical easement, even a single section is an improvement over no easement, while using more than four track sections is only marginally better.   Four sections was just convenient for this plan, as Lionel makes quarter-sections of O48 FasTrack curves.

Bending curved track vertically does sound like an interesting challenge.  I've done transitions to grades up to 12% with O tubular straights, and to grades up to 8% with Gargraves Flex (vertical bend while straight, then formed the curve).  I always use plywood jigs for these bends, bending the face of the plywood for the vertical track bending, and cutting the edge of the plywood to the inside diameter for the regular curve bending.

You're looking at much lower grade changes, but with rigid plastic base/roadbed. I guess I'd build a heated jig for the vertical curve out of 1/2" plywood over an oil-filled space heater, then use a heat gun to warm the plastic a little more while pressing the track down into the jig, to form the bend. Has anyone done this with their plastic track?

Skipdup posted:

LionChief get's it's commands wirelessly and ProtoSound gets from a signal sent through the track, right?

So, I would need either a MTH Z-1000 (just the brick, without controller) or Lionel PH-135, plugged into a DCS Remote Commander, and then hardwire that into my Fastrack.  Right?

Anyone know if the PH-135 will plug directly into the DCS Commander directly?  Or are plug adapters needed?

Also, I (might) vaguely remember reading, or seeing a YouTube video, where Lionel (???) stated you needed to run the PowerHouse with the TMCC Lock On house thingy - for the short circuit protection - or something???

Yes, to run LionChief, just put the power to the track. The Z-1000 (brick only) is plug and play with the DCS Remote Commander. The PH-135 is not. You would need to swap the plug.

The TMCC Lock-on is "nice" but not mandatory. You probably do want to include a MTH 50-1014 12 Port Terminal Block. As I mentioned earlier, it's a good idea to plan for one track feeder for every 6 track joints.

Gilly@N&W posted:

Skipdup posted:

LionChief get's it's commands wirelessly and ProtoSound gets from a signal sent through the track, right?

So, I would need either a MTH Z-1000 (just the brick, without controller) or Lionel PH-135, plugged into a DCS Remote Commander, and then hardwire that into my Fastrack.  Right?

Anyone know if the PH-135 will plug directly into the DCS Commander directly?  Or are plug adapters needed?

Also, I (might) vaguely remember reading, or seeing a YouTube video, where Lionel (???) stated you needed to run the PowerHouse with the TMCC Lock On house thingy - for the short circuit protection - or something???

Yes, to run LionChief, just put the power to the track. The Z-1000 (brick only) is plug and play with the DCS Remote Commander. The PH-135 is not. You would need to swap the plug.

The TMCC Lock-on is "nice" but not mandatory. You probably do want to include a MTH 50-1014 12 Port Terminal Block. As I mentioned earlier, it's a good idea to plan for one track feeder for every 6 track joints.

Thank you.  Very helpful!

Ken-Oscale posted:

Skip, here is a revision of my earlier track plan that incorporates vertical easements (inspired by another thread here on the forum).   The idea is to create an easement in the change of grade, in order to avoid the sharp change in grade from 0% to 3.2%   So that locomotives will have less time when a driving wheel is "lifted" above the rail for a short distance (thus reducing traction) over the track section joints.  Long ridged-wheelbase steamers will have the most difficulty with sharp vertical transitions, while two-axle trucks will tend to always have all four wheels in contact with the rail head.   

The short sections will gradually increase in grade when going from 0% to 3.2% (and the reverse when going from 3.2% back to 0% at the top of the grade).   Theoretically, with four short sections between 0% and 3.2%, each section will change by roughly 0.64%:  from 0%:  0.64%; 1.28%; 1.92%; 2.56%;  3.2%.  [You would not need to be as mathematically precise as this implies, this just shows how a vertical transition works.]

Incidentally, my Lionchief Plus FT ABA set is strong at climbing grades, in addition to motors in all units driving all 12 axles, in two-axle trucks, there are traction tires on each unit, and in an un-advertised feature, all three units have strong Magnatraction on all axles (I tested, and previously reported this feature here on the forum).

One could try to bend vertically, a long section of track (like a O48 30-degree curve) to form a vertical easement.   For a track system not composed of ridged plastic roadbed, of course.   This would be challenging to do, but possible.   Perhaps simpler in the long run to use four short track sections to build the easement as I have shown.   Its even better to use long sections of track for the vertical easement, like full O72 sections, but this track plan does not allow for this wide a diameter.

There is a trade-off between the length of the vertical easements, and the grade between easements.   In the plan shown, the addition of vertical easements increased the "ruling-grade" between the easements from 3.2% to 3.3%, a worthwhile trade-off in this case.

Finally, there is nothing mandated about using four sections of sectional track for a vertical easement, even a single section is an improvement over no easement, while using more than four track sections is only marginally better.   Four sections was just convenient for this plan, as Lionel makes quarter-sections of O48 FasTrack curves.

Thank you for this.  I had no idea.

Made a track order yesterday.  I think I'll just need to buy the four O48 7.5...

"Yes, to run LionChief, just put the power to the track. The Z-1000 (brick only) is plug and play with the DCS Remote Commander. The PH-135 is not. You would need to swap the plug.

The TMCC Lock-on is "nice" but not mandatory. You probably do want to include a MTH 50-1014 12 Port Terminal Block. As I mentioned earlier, it's a good idea to plan for one track feeder for every 6 track joints."

The TMCC Lock-On has a fast electronic breaker, the PH135 has a slower breaker I think. I'm not clear about the MTH items. But I would like to use the Lock-On for the fast trip in case of a short.

This is an under-tree layout intended for play by and with kids, right?

No way I'd go without the TMCC Lock-On for its fast breaker.
I'd also plug it all into a Tripp Lite Isobar, or similar metal-housing surge protector.

Then again,
I'd also wire in a slow breaker like from Scott's Odds-n-Ends. (Or, does the DCS gear have this in it?)
I'd also upgrade the house panel with an Arc Fault Breaker for the train's circuit.
And a SurgeBreaker (assuming it's a QO panel)

Maybe all this is a bit much, but... you're not just protecting the trains - you're protecting the kids.