# L Shaped 8'x8' Layout



## Thelic

Hi Everyone,

Long time lurker, firs time poster here. A quick background on me and then I'll jump right into it.

I'm a Civil Technologist with a Bachelor's in Computer Science, I enjoy hobbies that have me tinkering with things, aquariums, RC helicopters, computer programming etc.

I'm looking to build an L shaped N scale layout to fit in a small room in my basement. I'd also like to somewhat automate the layout, DCC and block detection will be a must.

I also decided to buck up and just go with Peco Code 55 despite the cost, the switch variety and code 80 track buried deeper really sold it.

As far as era/location, I live in Terrace BC on the Prince George/Prince Rupert CN main line and would like to model it in a fictional setting in the moden era.

The traffic I'm looking to model is:
-Long Coal/Intermodal/Grain Trains (thru traffic)
-Short Lumber/Tanker/Chip/Scrap Trains (locally shipped/received traffic)

I'm not so interested in passenger trains, we have very few of them around here.

The scenery should encompass mountains, rivers, and industries such as saw mills, bulk plants, and scrap yards. No need for loading/unloading facilities for coal, containers, or grain.

The main itself is single with long passing sidings.


I need adequate staging for 3 long trains (72"). I figure this is enough to give the illusion of a long train if broken up by mountains and tunnels. These trains do not generally stop in the community but make up the bulk of the traffic on the main.

Additionally I'd like to be able to have a small yard capable of sorting smaller (48") trains and then somewhere for them to go.

So I've been browsing track layouts for weeks and came across the White River and Northern IV by by David K. Smith.

http://davidksmith.com/modeling/wrn4-1.htm

I really like the track plan, it squeezes a lot into a small area.

It uses a a main loop with staging as well as a secondary line with balloons on each end with a few cross overs between as the base. This really allows you to keep traffic moving, which is what I want.

Then it adds a small yard and some small sidings to keep it interesting.

This is what I ended up with.









It has a 2.3% ruling grade with 2-1/4" clearance between level 2 and 3, and about 4" between level 1 and 2. The tightest corner is a 16.5" radius (eased) with the majority of the layout being 18" or better.

I will have to make use of remote tortoise mounts for many of the switches or go with a lower profile switch machine.

Here's the bottom layer, basically staging and long runs back to the main display level. 







Obviously access to the hidden runs will be a priority when designing the benchwork.


This is the main display level, minus the yard.







I'm actually really happy with this, but if you see a hole please don't hesitate to poke. I will have to adjust any spurs to the scenery, but there should be lots of space.

It took me a few iterations to get the A/D track in there without it looking like it was shoehorned. That double slip crossover was the big win.


And the top level, just a balloon track after a hill climb.







Again, a spur that I can adjust.

And finally the yard.







I'm not toally happy with this, I think it jammed too many lines into it for the number of industries I'm serving, I'm thinking about cutting it in half and using the remaining space in the loop for either structures or a mountain scene.


And here's why i split those up.








And here's it without the terrain.








And before you comment on the table size, I'm fairly tall (and young) and I will be able reach all the track, i checked. Oh, and I can pull it away from the wall. The room is actually about 9-1/2" x 11".

So how much of a nightmare will this be to build? I'm hoping it keeps me busy for at least a few years.


----------



## Gramps

Others with more expertise than I will comment on your track plan but "I'm hoping it keeps me busy for at least a few years." may be the biggest understatement in model railroading I've ever heard. Good luck and welcome to the hobby.


----------



## DonR

Thelic

A very ambitious track plan but it would afford some
enjoyable continuous running as well as some
switching. As to switching, you have a nice yard
but you need a number of single industrial spurs
to augment it. 

You are aware that you have at least 2 reverse loop
situations which would require isolated sections
and a reverse loop controller for each. The one
loop would require special wiring to automatically
throw the points of the controlling turnout to avoid derails.

Track detection is available. There are various
devices that do that. One is current sensing which
alerts when loco motor or cars with special conducting
paint across the axles enter it's isolated block. Others
use infra red or photoelectric. 

There is another beginning modeller here on the Forum who also
wishes to use advanced digital technology to
control his layout. You may want to work with him 
for your mutual advantage.

But I would encourage you to stay with your DCC
controller and trains until you get it all functioning
smoothly. Then begin to add your more specialized
gear.

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR

Well, your plan and your concept are both sound. That layout will be a lot of fun to build and will give you lots of fun when completed.

That said, if this is your first venture into the hobby, that's a mighty big mouthful to bite off all at once with an incredibly steep learning curve.

My personal opinion is that you would be better served by building something smaller first while you figure out the techniques and tricks that such a layout will require. You say you hope it will keep you busy for a few years -- it is my considered opinion that it will overwhelm you.

My recommendation would be to identify a couple of pieces of that larger whole that you could build and operate as stand-alone sections (or make it modular), so you can try your hand without the massive investment of time and money that your plan will entail. If you make modules, you can incorporate these into the larger whole at a later date if they turn out well.


----------



## Thelic

Thanks for the feedback guys!

I made some changes and am working on version 11!

Don,

I am aware of the twin reverse loops, and the complex switching I have used. It actually got more complex in my more recent version, but I think it handles the angles better and looks more natural. I was hoping the layout would be an exercise in automation. I've been looking into the Digitrax products available. I'd like to eventually have a computer terminal run the layout.

I was really impressed with Mark VerMurlen's build. http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=53721

I'm looking for ways to add more industrial spurs to the track, I've read though as bunch more builds and it seems this is almost always advised.



CT,

I had a few 4' x 8' HO layouts as a kid, the last was actually a cookie cutter with multiple levels, however it never made it past track work.

I'm a fairly decent carpenter with access to a full wood shop, so the woodwork doesn't scare me. I've designed and produced a few nice pieces of furniture. A 180 gallon oak fish tank stand was the last project. The programming and electrical is something I'll always enjoy.

That said, I think I'll have a hard time incorporating it into a larger whole, and personally I think I'd rather have a stand alone layout. If and when the time comes maybe I can persuade the chief financial officer for a train room.


On to the changes!









So the biggest change I've made was stretching one side to 9.5'. This let me spread things out, reduce areas of stacked track, eliminate the 3rd layer, and allow easy access to ALL switch machines. It also helped reduce the ruling grade to 2%.

I reworked the lower double crossover with a double slip. Its a little more complicated but the angles don't look forced (removes an S bend).

The A/D track has been lengthened to 80", I can now fit full sized trains. This should help make up for the loss of the 3rd staging track.

Added a roadway that seems to make sense.

I spit the layout in a way that *only* requires 7 tracks be joined. The previous layout had no where to spit it that made any sense.

I'm considering adding a spur in the yard area for a bulk plant.

The front spur will likely be used for a saw mill while the leftmost could be a pulp & paper mill. I'm going try to squeeze a scrap yard in somewhere. Maybe just in the main yard area.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I like the simplification that you've made in your latest design. I think you'll be better served with the lesser amount of hidden track than in your first design. As you've also realized, making sure you have clearance under your turnouts for the Tortoise motors will make your build much easier.

Have you considered how you'll access the 3 storage tracks? If you're not opposed to making them visible, I'd suggest taking the track loop that's currently over the other and putting it under so that you can expose the storage tracks and further reduce your hidden track footage. I know that some people want to hide their staged trains, but its not uncommon to see idle trains on tracks in the real world.

Regarding adding more industrial spurs, I would suggest that you design something into the interior of your left hand loops. You've created a really nice yard in the lower right to make use of that interior loop space. I think you could do something similar within the left hand loops. You could look at some point to point shelf layout designs and see if you can steal a portion of one of those designs to put into that space. Think of an industrial complex type area with multiple buildings with multiple track spurs servicing them.

Unless you really are wanting to model a lot of roadway, I'd eliminate the continuous road from one end to the other of your layout. You can have access roads come into your yard and industrial areas from off the layout.

I'm looking forward to seeing your layout come to life. I hope you'll post periodic status updates on it as you build it.

Finally, thanks for the nice comment on my layout.

Mark


----------



## DonR

Mark

I fully understand your desire to work on an
automated control system for your layout.

I did that some years back using multi contact Potter Brumfield
relays. It worked,
But then I realized. The system satisfied the
creative juices to accomplish the system, but it
results in taking YOU out of the picture. You
are but a spectator.

Your track design offers interesting operational
challenges that would give you hours of enjoyable
train running with YOU pushing the buttons and
maintaining control. The ideal would be to have
the automated circuits switchable so that you can
manually control the layout if you wish.

As to the 'reverse loops'. Use the DCC reverse
loop controllers with a detector circuit that can
throw the turnout points so your trains can continuously
run through them without the need for a manual
point throw.

I would also suggest a Diode Matrix to control the
points in your yard. You have one panel button in
each yard track. Push it and all points in your path
throw for a clear track. It's done with cheap diodes.
Does require twin coil turnout motors in the yard
tracks.

Don


----------



## santafealltheway

Gramps said:


> Others with more expertise than I will comment on your track plan but "I'm hoping it keeps me busy for at least a few years." may be the biggest understatement in model railroading I've ever heard. Good luck and welcome to the hobby.


my dad bought me a train set when i was like, 5 or 6 years old, hoping it "Might keep him busy for a week or two'

now im 27 lol


----------



## Thelic

Ah, but Don that's the beauty of automation. If done correctly it's a magnificent thing to behold. 

It's like my aquarium. With the way I've set it up I do almost zero water changes. Food goes in, is processed by the fish, the waste is taken up by the plants and then I just remove a handful of floating plants twice a week. 95% of the workload is adding fertilizer, food, and trace elements back to the water. Its this perfect balance.

What I really desire is for the computer to be able to control 1 or 2 trains, simulating other engineers, while I control one myself. Or if you desire you could act as the dispatch and have the trains control themselves, automatic braking on sidings etc.

Point is once your automated you really can do anything, including full manual control.


I'm decently happy with the last posted layout, I'm still tweaking it for better access and fixing mistakes. For example I have a double slip on the bottom right, where it clearly should just be a single.

I think I'll broaden the staging curves in the top right, this should give better access from behind/below. I'll also pull the upper reverse loop switch (yellow) down a touch to increase the horizontal space between the staging and it to about 6". That combined with about 2" of vertical separation should be plenty for me to reach in and clear a derailment, and certainly enough to wipe tracks clean.

The left loops will end up with about 3" of vertical separation so I'm thinking that should be sufficient for access from below.


----------



## Thelic

Amazing how much better things look with terrain contours.

I'm really hoping to avoid the flat look.

I reversed the yard ladder direction, this should give me more usable space, I changed the engine storage tracks and added a spur for a bulk plant.























I'm trying to decide the best way to build this. I'm most familiar with cookie cutter, but I think using splines made from 3/16" x 3/4"pine strips topped with cork would be a better product.

I'm still torn on whether to go with 2 or 3 staging tracks, I may have to make that call once I get there just to see how tight the access feels.


----------



## Thelic

Well, some testing equipment is on the way. 2 each of Kato GE ES44AC GEVOs and Gunderson Maxi-I 5-Unit Double-Stack Cars. I'll be checking what my maximum grades and clearances are. I'll probably end up with 3 or 4 of the Maxi-I units eventually, but I'll check what a single engine can pull and add half that again for a 2 engine consist.


----------



## Thelic

Getting Closer...

- Squeezed an extra spur into the bottom right.

- Reversed the yard, as mentioned previously.

- Reversed the bridge/tunnel on left, looks a lot more natural, and gives a greater bridge selection as it doesn't have to clear span the river and the tracks. It also improves alignment on the reverse loop sections.

-Revisited the idea of under layout staging, this time with 1-1/2 rotation helices (yea i googled it) to give ~8" separation and moved the staging yard to within 8" of the front of the table. It still can accommodate a 72" train. Gives better clearance for access to hidden tracks, removes all hidden switches, and gives easy access to the staging tracks. Technically its actually less hidden track because the yard is now visible.

At a scale 55 mph (6inch / sec) it takes a train a little over 2 minutes between leaving the layout and reemerging from staging. 

-Pushed the branch line back into the corner, longer track helps with the grades and clearance no longer required for rear staging. Way more room for scenery between yard and branch.















Did some math on the train lengths I plan to run.

Train 1: Double Header Intermodal - 2x Kato GE ES44AC, 2x Kato Gunderson Maxi-I, 1x Gunderson Maxi-IV. Length ~72".

Train 2: Double Header Coal - 2x Kato GE ES44AC, 15-16x Bethgon Coalporter. Whatever is < 72".

Still looking into other possible trains.

I think that both of those *should* be able to handle 3% grades without issue. Twin Kato engines, metal wheels, large radius turns...


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I really like your latest layout design. I think your upper level plan has a lot of interest. I've not ever built a helix of any type, so I can't help you there. It does seem like a good idea to use a small helix to be able to get you extra clearance space for working on trains in your staging area.

I do think building this is going to be challenging. I'm not quite sure how best to tackle the track support structure. I'm inclined to build one flat base L-girder and joist structure that supports everything above it. Your bottom storage tracks can then be laid on plywood directly sitting on the joists. But then everything else has to be raised above that on sub-roadbed supported by risers. I'd probably build all the sub-roadbed out of plywood. Maybe others might have other recommendations.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

I think I actually cracked the bench issue.

Some new "Givens" have been added to the list by the household's CFO.

- Benchwork must allow for a 29" tall work surface to be stored underneath in the form of a standard height desk. Desktop will likely be 24" x 54"

- Height of terrain not to exceed 48" above floor to avoid blocking windows and exceeding the height of the basement ledge. Trees and other structures above are Ok.


I'm going to build the whole thing from 3/4" birch plywood. 


The design strategy will be open grid with a combination of spline and plywood subroadbed. This should give me great access to switch machines and hidden track. L girder would have been easier but I just don't have the vertical space to get both the lower level staging and scenery in with the constraints.

Extreme care will need be taken to avoid stringers intersecting point motors.

I'll build stringers from plywood on end, cutting the profile of the layout with each one. This will be the most tedious part by far. This will eliminate a ton of excess wood under the layout though, hopefully making for a neat and tidy design.

Subroadbed will be 3/4" x 1/4" pine splines. The hope being that this will provide natural easements and run very quiet as it doesn't have a large resonating surface. Homesote would be better, but I don't have the space for 3" tall splines.

The yard subroadbed will be a plywood sheet.


The goal of the layout it to have something that runs extremely well. Large radius curves, high switch #'s, easements, proper clearances, electrofrogs, reliable engines, metal wheel sets, etc.


So I have a couple weeks worth of Sketchup before I cut anything. In the meantime 2 car sets and 2 engines are in the mail, along with a Kato starter trackplan. This should allow me some testing and measurements for clearances.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Sounds like a good plan to me. When you start building it, please update us with your progress. Most of us put our build threads under the "My Layout" section. I'd encourage you to do the same since your design is now nearly complete. I'm looking forward to seeing this built.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

Oh, I'm still a long ways from building. Forever tweaking. Way easier to do it on paper/software than plywood!

Newest version will eliminate the mainline bend below the branch/reverse loop bridge. This was originally to cross the bridge and mainline, no longer necessary.

A side effect is I will get way more interesting road placement by pushing it under the bridge and up a slope along the creek to the inner loop.



A question, and I know its loaded....

I'm thinking of shrinking the upper reverse loop to gain more visible mainline along the front. A potential way to do this is shrink the hidden portion down to maybe a 14" radius, that gives me 4 more inches width along the front. The other option is to shrink the entire loop, down to 16" radius. What are your thoughts? I think I'll be way happier with the longer mainline run.


----------



## Thelic

Version 22!









At Mark's suggestion I decided to remove the highway. I think it takes up a lot of space and really handcuffs you since level crossing more than 2-3 tracks isn't very prototypical, meaning it forces the yard location. It also spoils any sense of distance between things.

As such I flipped the yard back, gained a longer run around, more storage and it just looks more natural.

I pulled the S-bend out of the left side and adjusted the table to fit. I think it flows a lot better.

The upper reverse loop has been tightened (still 16.5" radius), this allows the twin mainlines to have a bit more of a run before entering the tunnel. This keeps trains from entering/leaving the yard immediately from or into a tunnel, not very prototypical. It's also going to open up more space for a water feature to help create the illusion of distance.

The minimum radius has shrunk to 16.2" but its a corner only visible from the inside, I think it should look Ok. I hope the Maxi -IV's will look acceptable on 16". Apparently they are designed to go around Kato's 9.75” radius curves!

One further option I'm looking at is pulling the yard back further by changing the first of the ladder turnouts to a curved turnout. That should net about 4" additional length on each of the yard spurs.

I'm still reworking the staging for the new table shape.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I like what you've done with the 2 reverse loops. Giving them more separation from one another looks better. I can't help you with opinions on the N scale curve radius changes since I'm and HO scale guy.

I actually prefer your previous yard to this latest one. I liked the looks of the twin run-arounds that came back towards the inside of the layout. I could see storing cabooses on one of those 2 tracks. I also think getting the yard away from the mainline a bit helped the visual interest too and gives you more scenic/structure options. Just my opinion.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

Oh, see I really like the new yard. Playing with the simulator in Scarm I found it much more functional. In particular having the runaround incorporated into the A/D track. I do see that this may cause a problem if the A/D track is occupied. I'll have to add a second run around option in the next version.

Not going to be running any cabooses on the layout, FREDs only. So caboose storage is not really required.

The prototype yard in town has no extra space between the mainline or A/D tracks or even the rest of the double ended yard.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@54.5126941,-128.5844149,1469a,35y,0.36t/data=!3m1!1e3

It does however have those offset twin run arounds that they mainly use for servicing and storing engines.


----------



## Thelic

Looking at the layout it has the two complex intersections. I've been looking at alternative options to the single and double slips I have selected.









The only way I've figured how to remove the double slip on the reverse loop intersection is through the use of a 3 way turnout. Not sure if this is a better option, it adds a S-bend to what would be a heavily used route.

The other intersection uses a single slip, and could be replaced with a cross and two additional curved switches.This doesn't effect traffic or throw anything out of alignment, it may be the better option.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Thelic said:


> I really like the new yard. Playing with the simulator in Scarm I found it much more functional.


Functionality is what counts in a yard, so if you like the way the new one works, then I think that’s the way you should go.

Mark


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Thelic said:


> Looking at the layout it has the two complex intersections. I've been looking at alternative options to the single and double slips I have selected.
> 
> View attachment 400682
> 
> 
> The only way I've figured how to remove the double slip on the reverse loop intersection is through the use of a 3 way turnout. Not sure if this is a better option, it adds a S-bend to what would be a heavily used route.
> 
> The other intersection uses a single slip, and could be replaced with a cross and two additional curved switches.This doesn't effect traffic or throw anything out of alignment, it may be the better option.
> 
> What are your thoughts?


I don't have experience with single or double slips or even with a three way turnout, so I can't really give any opinions on reliability of any of these. Hopefully some others with experience with these track pieces can jump in with their opinions.

I've been looking at these 2 junctions for a couple of hours. I can't quite put my finger on what bothers be about them. You've labeled your red track as "mainline", but I don't really think that it is. Its really serving 2 different functions. Its your entry to and exit from your staging. I also think you'll be using it as a passing track more so than as mainline. So my question to you is do you agree that's how you'd use this track? If so, can you separate the 2 functions and thus simplify both junctions?

If you want to keep all the route options you currently have, I think the left hand reworked junction works fine. The right hand reworked junction has an odd bow on the outside track leading to the staging area. I think if you move the last turnout before the staging area farther away from the main junction, you can get rid of that weird bow and avoid the S curves that result from it.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

Mark, I agree the two junctions are a bit of an oddity, and not at all prototypical in this region. They do save a ton of space though.

I guess we should discuss operations.

In the prototype intermodals are somewhere in the 6 to 8 trains a day range, while coal and grain are a little less. Some of these spend a little time in the siding beside the yard before continuing their journey, but none of these trains are modified in town.

The prototype has several team tracks in town, they unload things like salt for highway maintenance (my business) and cement powder.

Town also has a bulk plant next to the yard, and a scrap metal yard with sidings on a branch line.

As mentioned previously, in the past town had used rail for moving chips up the branch line to a pulp mill and lumber from the sawmill to the port.


As for my operations...

I had envisioned on eventually running automated thru trains from staging on the red route, that's why I referred to it as "mainline".

The blue line would serve as local short term storage for these trains. The requirement then would be to be able to store an intermodal train without blocking the A/D track. 

My Kato Maxi-I's are 22.25" long each, so three of them and two 5.5" Kato GE ES44AC's so the siding would need to hold about 78" or 72" if using a two Maxi-I's and a Maxi-IV. Coal and grain trains could easily be shortened to the nearest car under 72".

Local operations would consist of accepting a mixed cargo train, breaking it up and delivering cars to their respective industries while avoiding delaying the thru traffic, which the prototype values highly.

Basically, receive a train from staging into green A/D track, break train in half or thirds to avoid fouling main and sort into yard. The yard has room to comfortably fit twenty four 50' cars.

Then deliver cars as required to industries on the branch lines exchanging full for empty or vice versa. The industry off the main provides an interesting scheduling challenge. But this turnout exists in the prototype as well.

Finally build train from cars returned from industries, turn it around and dispatch back to the staging yard.


And of course, for maximum railfaning you can run out of the staging yard, around both reversing loops and back into the staging yard on the opposite side of the layout.



So yes, I had regarded the red line as the mainline as it connects to the outside world.

The blue functions as a long siding and turn around. The prototype uses a wye, but its far less continuous run friendly.


Is there a better way to run this?


----------



## Thelic

Took a little while, but I'm much happier with it than when we started.

































































I reworked the yard to have an always accessible run around/engine maintenance track. It has room to comfortably run around three 50' cars. The spur for the bulk plant is also off this route.

The main level is 6.5" above the staging yard, this should give access to the staging yard in excess of 5.5". This should give me enough room to install switch machines. it will be difficult to be sure though.

I'm still not sure what the best switch machine to run would be. I like the idea of having a DCC decoder on each switch, along with micro switches for frog power and LEDs. I was considering Tortises, but the digital Cobalts seem to be more feature packed. I see the Smails are also comparable to the digital Cobalts.

Any advice?


I guess my next step is to block this into detection sections...


----------



## Thelic

Alright, so I've diagrammed the track (excuse the MS paint skills, or lack there of). I've also been doing a lot of reading.









So the way I understand it is any length of track that could potentially hold a train should be its own block.

So short runs between switches are not necessary to block separately and can be combined with the switches that make up that intersection? Basically the "On Switch" block encompasses the entire intersection.

So then for stopping trains at signals accurately within a block using JMRI each block would be broken down into at least 3 sub-blocks (for travel each way) allowing the computer to sense where the train is in relation to the end of the block? (I haven't drawn these in yet)

Is it possible to accurately stop a 72" train in an 80" siding using block detection and JMRI, as well as do it slowly?

And then getting even further into it, using transponding you *should* be able to route all 3 sub-blocks through the same detector?

Unsure how to deal with the spurs. Do they typically get their own block, or are they just considered part of the parent block?


I'm going to need like 16 different colors of wire...


----------



## Thelic

So after sectioning I end up with 12 Blocks, each with 3 or 4 sub-blocks. 









If I use BDL 168s for detection and RX4's for transponding I "only" need 3 BDL 168s and 3 RX4s.

Each RX4 handles the common wire for a given block, and each block is split into up to 4 sub-blocks. This should give enough information to determine what is in each block and where it is in relation to stopping points.

The junctions don't have any detection, I'm not sure whether to stretch the blocks into them or not. Guidance would be appreciated!

Please stop me if I am wrong!


----------



## jackpresley

I'm a big believer in simulation, which I assume SCARM does from one of your earlier posts. My eventual goal is similar to yours as far as automation is concerned. Simulations of my designs usually end up with a lot of surprises that I sure would not have wanted to have during the actual build.

Good luck with your design and build.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I was never able to figure out JMRI, so I'm using TrainController as my automation controller. So everything I'm going to say is based on TrainController which may or may not carry over into JMRI.

I chose to make my spurs separate blocks. Not because I plan to park full trains there, but because I want to move a locomotive and a car or two into and out of it automatically and maybe park there as well. If you put slower speed limits on those blocks, the trains will slow down before entering them which helps with realism.

I did not break all my blocks up into 3 (or more) sections. TrainController can profile the speed of locomotives so it can fairly accurately stop a train at a certain spot, plus or minus and inch or so. Most blocks don't need that amount of accuracy. I do have a couple of blocks that I'm considering putting additional sensors into because I'm running train lengths that just barely fit. If you break your blocks up into three sections like you have, you'll get absolute accuracy, but its also taking a fair amount of hardware to get that. Its up to you if you need that everywhere or not. I would certainly never break a block into 4 because it really doesn't serve any purpose that I'm aware of.

I chose to include my turnouts into my blocks. The going recommendation on the TrainController forum is that you shouldn't put the turnout in any block. I didn't know that at the time I wired my layout. I really haven't noticed any serious problems with what I've done, so I'm happy to leave it as is. Note that if you put a turnout into a block, it must go into the single block on the points side of the turnout and not into either of the 2 blocks on the other side. I would encourage you to read some of the threads about this on the TrainController forum. There are some issues with not detecting on the turnout. When using current sensing like the BDL168s, the electronics of the detector will have a slightly lower voltage than the raw bus feed. This can cause some issues with accurately knowing when a train enters a block because it can sometimes draw power from the higher voltage track even though its partway into the next block. If you always have a small sensing zone on each end of a block like you do currently, this won't matter to you. You can also add diodes to the turnout power feed to knock down the voltage slightly. I'm not an expert on this, so that's why I encourage you to read the TrainController forum on this topic.

I don't have any RX4s on my layout, so I don't ever detect which train is in a block. On my layout, I had to initially tell the software which train was in each occupied block, but I've only had to do that once. The software tracks the train as it moves from block to block because its thrown the turnouts so it knows where the train should be. I think the only place on your layout that you really need the RX4s is on the A/D track outside your yard. The advantage of putting it there is that the software can then read the train identity when it comes out of the yard and it can then track it from there without the need for any other identification sensors. If you didn't put it there, you'd have to manually identify the train for the software. The other place you might want to put the RX4 sensors is on your staging tracks. If you plan to manually swap out locomotives in staging (or maybe spurs too), then it would be advantageous to be able to automatically identify the locomotive in those blocks. I personally don't think there's any need for identity checking anywhere else.

Rather than use a bunch of different colored wire, I chose to use tie wraps with label heads to write the block number on. I put a few of these tie wrap labels on the wire periodically so I can identify them. All my rail power is black/red wire, my switch machines are white/yellow, my auxiliary DC power for lighting is orange/gray. Keep a drawing and spreadsheet with your block assignments, BDL168 assignments, turnout motor assignments, signal assignments, etc.

Hope this helps.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

Thanks for the words of encouragement Jack.

Mark, as always you're a wealth of information.

If the software is really that good at monitoring trains that makes things much easier. Encouraging to know you've only have to ID them the one time.

Some of my blocks are very tight for a 72" train to fit, so I think I'll stick with the small blocks at each end.

The reason for breaking a block into 3 is to get those small end blocks as you've surmised. However breaking the block more times gives you the ability to have chains chase each other within the block, I figured the long decent through around the rear of the layout and down the 1-1/2 turn helix might be nice to break up since its over 4x the maximum train length, though maybe that's just overkill.


I will have a look over that forum.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Thelic said:


> If the software is really that good at monitoring trains that makes things much easier. Encouraging to know you've only have to ID them the one time.


I've maybe stretched the truth slightly, but the software really is quite robust. The software is designed to work with a wide variety of sensors, like momentary contact sensors, so it has to be robust in tracking trains. If the train "picks the point" and actually goes down the wrong branch of the turnout, the software will be confused because it will detect occupancy in one block when the train is expected in the other. I've had this happen rarely. When it does, chances are the locomotive and some cars are likely to derail anyway which means you have to stop the software. In the software, I may then have to manually drag the train from one block to the other. But it is true the train is only configured once and I may have to just drag its position from one block to another. I also don't tend to manually reconfigure my trains a lot, so I've not missed automatic train identification.



Thelic said:


> The reason for breaking a block into 3 is to get those small end blocks as you've surmised. However breaking the block more times gives you the ability to have chains chase each other within the block, I figured the long decent through around the rear of the layout and down the 1-1/2 turn helix might be nice to break up since its over 4x the maximum train length, though maybe that's just overkill.


In this case, I would break up the helix and lead lines into 2 or 3 equal size zones and make them logically independent blocks. I'm not sure about JMRI, but TrainController defaults to only allow one train in a logical block at one time. You can override this, but I think it should be used cautiously in special circumstances. So if the helix & feed is 2 or 3 blocks, the software will automatically chain trains going around the helix without any special handling.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

I've been looking at the brochure and browsing some videos on train controller. Seems like for the price it could save a massive headache.

Don't worry, I didn't take that ID once thing literally, but I get the idea. No need to constantly ID the train every block. Just when using the 0-5-0 switcher.

Mark what do you use as far as hardware? I was thinking the simplest route would be Digitrax everything. The BDL168 seems like a fantastic device, and the SE8C also seems ideal. I just really dislike their throttles!

What method would you recommend for turnout control? Switch machines with individual decoders or centralized with DS64s?

That said, insulfrog or elecrtofrog? Bare in mind I'll likely only be running 6 axle diesels, maybe one 4 axle as a passenger train at some point. It would be a Kato EMD F40PH, with all wheel pick up.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I have the Gold version of TrainController, which is actually very expensive. I was originally very opposed to spending that much money on the software, but in the long run, its been worth it since TrainController can do so much and is relatively easy to setup and use.

I have all Digitrax hardware, except for the Loconet to USB adapter which I bought from RR-CirKits based on reviews I've read about it. I figured that since this was my first DCC layout and I wanted full train automation, I wanted to go with a single manufacturer since that would give me the highest degree of compatibility. There's also a fair number of examples around the web that use it. I also like the Loconet communications mechanism and its ability to be extended in many ways, such as using Arduino or other micro controllers. Its worked out well for me, but I know that there are others on this forum that promote other systems and hardware suppliers.

My DCC Controller is the DCS100. I use PM42s for power distribution and short circuit management. I have BDL168s for occupancy detection. I use SE8Cs for turnout motor control and for signaling. (I'm still working on building signals and don't have any of my signaling working yet.) I chose to use Tortoise turnout motors since my past experience with solenoid motors has been problematic. The SE8C can directly run Tortoise motors for turnouts without the need for other hardware. Be aware that Digitrax has released some newer hardware that integrates short circuit, detection, and train ID into one new board. I don't have any experience with it, but it sounds good.

I fully understand your dislike of the Digitrax throttles. I started with a Zephyr DCS51, which I liked, but I don't like their other throttles. I'm currently using digital throttles on my touch screen computer or my iPhone/iPad. I'm not totally happy with the digital throttles because they lack the mechanical feel that I want. I'm still trying to figure out what my next step might be regarding throttles. 

Mark


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

One other thing, I think that TrainController can actually operate 2 control systems simultaneously. So I think it might be possible to have something like an NCE throttle and command station with Digitrax Loconet based detection, switch machine control, and signaling.

Rudy and Fredrick on this forum are much more knowledgable about TrainConroller and would know better about if this is possible and how to do this.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

I've been reading the manual, looks like for transponding you need at least Silver. It looks like it will be way easier than JMRI to implement.

I'm going to take another look at my layout, I think I could use a BXP88 (8 detection & transponding sections) to detect 4 staging yard tracks, and the A/D track. Not sure where the rest of the sections would be used best. I may just leave them open.

The remainder would simply be BDL168 detection sections without transponding.

How does the software handle complex crossovers? Is it smart enough to allow multiple routes through my complex intersections at once?


So SCARM tells me I have 31 switches. One of which is a double slip (2 motors), another is a single slip (2 motors), and a third is a three way (2 motors). So that brings me to 34 switch machines. Yikes!

That said there are a number of crossovers you could drive with a single motor, not sure if this is easier, or just a headache in the long run. Opinions?

If I remove the yard for construction at a later date I'm still at 25, which is still four SE8Cs so I may as well bite the bullet and go with the five I'll end up requiring to avoid silly wiring later. Ground throws with electrical switches are also only a few dollars cheaper if you need to power frogs, so might as well just do it with a Tortoise.


----------



## Thelic

Woohoo! Trains have arrived!

Surprised to learn that the Maxi-I car is not in fact 22-1/4" long as claimed in the brochure, but 20-1/4" long. This opens up some serious space on the layout! I can simply go with 3 Maxi-I cars instead of 2 and a Maxi-IV and still come in slightly over 72" with a doubleheader.

All the cars are surprisingly heavy and run fantastic with the metal wheels, a single engine pulls the trains effortlessly.

These Kato engines are a dream, I've never seen something so small so smooth. The couplers...not so great...

Don't know if it how I'm pushing the cars together or what, but they seem to resist going together, once together they stay, but I'm having to set each car down into the other.

Does adding the magnetic decoupler help? I haven't added it yet.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Thelic said:


> I've been reading the manual, looks like for transponding you need at least Silver. It looks like it will be way easier than JMRI to implement.
> 
> I'm going to take another look at my layout, I think I could use a BXP88 (8 detection & transponding sections) to detect 4 staging yard tracks, and the A/D track. Not sure where the rest of the sections would be used best. I may just leave them open.
> 
> The remainder would simply be BDL168 detection sections without transponding.
> 
> How does the software handle complex crossovers? Is it smart enough to allow multiple routes through my complex intersections at once?
> 
> 
> So SCARM tells me I have 31 switches. One of which is a double slip (2 motors), another is a single slip (2 motors), and a third is a three way (2 motors). So that brings me to 34 switch machines. Yikes!
> 
> That said there are a number of crossovers you could drive with a single motor, not sure if this is easier, or just a headache in the long run. Opinions?
> 
> If I remove the yard for construction at a later date I'm still at 25, which is still four SE8Cs so I may as well bite the bullet and go with the five I'll end up requiring to avoid silly wiring later. Ground throws with electrical switches are also only a few dollars cheaper if you need to power frogs, so might as well just do it with a Tortoise.


TrainController does support single and double slips. I'm not sure about 3 ways, but that's easy to mimic with 2 turnouts. So I'm sure it can handle your complex track junctions. As long as you have parallel independent routes through your complex track junctions, TrainController should be able to pass simultaneous trains through those junctions.

I was looking more at your track block plan. I think you need to look again at your A/D track. You've got a turnout in the middle and at the end that go into your yard. Since the rule of thumb is to not make a turnout part of any block, I think you need to break your A/D track into two separate blocks on each side of the center turnout. I'm not an expert on this, so I would encourage you to ask questions about the best way to split your layout into blocks on the TrainController forum. If the end turnout on the A/D track isn't in the A/D block, then a train can actually pass from the mainline into/out of the yard without ever hitting the A/D block. I think that means you'll want another transponder on that blue mainline block then.

Do you know if you'll make all your cars detectable or not? If you make them all detectable (by adding resistors between their metal wheel sets) then you'll definitely want your spurs to be independent blocks so they don't make the mainline track appear to be occupied when a car is sitting in the spur.

You've got a complex track plan which requires a lot of hardware, both switch machines, controllers, and detectors. So its not a surprise that you need a lot of hardware to make this all functional. Because of this complexity, I again urge you to go to the experts on the TrainController forum. I'm expecting you'll get more engagement there than you've been getting here. I'd just hate to see mistakes made because only the two of us are looking at this and not a wider group of experts.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

So I've been "testing" my models, seeing what looks good, what operates well. Trying to figure out exactly what I want to accomplish.

Also picked up a second pair of Kato Es44ac's bringing the fleet to 4! Found some of the older ones available online so I've got road numbers #2801, #2825, #2814, and #2822. That gives me enough power to double head both sets of cars.

Some clarifications. The Kato couplers on the engines and Maxi cars are great, its the ones on the coalporters that don't work for coupling. They really need to be dropped into each other (as the directions show), not really good for switching operations. They will not go together by pushing the cars together, they have a shock absorber built into them, which works great when pushing a long string of cars, just not for switching.

I've been watching a lot of layout videos and doing a lot of driving for work, so I've gotten a fair share of railfanning in. That said, I'd like to be closer to the prototype. 

So some things I'm going to change:

1) Minimize switches, extra cost, extra maintenance, same as the prototype. Eliminate all "fancy" switches, moved to *ALL* #8 frogs.

2) Longer visible mainline run, I'd like to make use of some signals eventually. Having so much hidden doesn't really work for the visual appeal.

3) Double ended yard, the local yard is double ended with one side having a long yard lead. I'd also like the yard tracks to be able to handle a full length train, 76". This also mean I can do more staging on scene, and eliminates the need for hidden staging.

4) Passing siding, double track mains do not exist in my region. I'd like the challenge of using a passing siding rather than just run them around on their own tracks.

5) Hidden reverse loops, these look rather unprototypical for my region, but I like the idea of sending a train off layout then having it return flipped around. I'll probably double track the loops so that I can have a train staged in each loop while not blocking thru traffic.

So I've come up with the following...









The red portions with tunnels will lead to lower level reverse loops.

Let me know what you think, I'll probably adjust some of the spurs, but that's the location they will come off the main.


----------



## Thelic

So it all fits, 2-3/4" clearance between top of rails at all crossing points, lots of room for switch machines. Should be able to build it from 3/4" plywood or spline.










Ruling Grade: 3%
Minimum Visible Radius: 17"
Minimum Hidden Radius: 14"
Mainline Run: ~400"
Maximum Train Length: 80"


I think I may have room to pull off a small container facility in one of the lobes. The bottom lobe is actually situated very nicely for switching from the siding. You can break up a full length train using the siding as a drill track.

The left lobe can be switched using the siuding and bottom lobes single track as a drill track. This was one of those "happy accidents".

Don't really like the two spurs into the middle of the layout, may just join them into a 5th track in the yard. This would allow me to cut the benchwork further into the corner which will help with reach.

Every iteration I get happier with the plan. Just need to finish the tile in the basement to get the final go ahead from the CFO.


----------



## DonR

Thelic

I agree, lots of interesting train running plus
switching challenges.

However, your latest additions have created at least
3 reverse loops, if I follow your colors correctly.
Not a problem if DCC. A Digitrax PM 42 has capability
of controlling up to 4 isolated reverse loops.

Don


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Your latest plan looks good. I would consider using the 2 track spur in the middle for an engine house. The other middle spur could be something like a refueling and sanding siding. Since those spurs are along side your yard tracks, I would pick yard services to put on them.

While Don thinks there are 3 reverse loops, I only see 2 (the balloon shaped returns under the main layout). You do have fairly long leads to get to your reverse loops, I would consider trying to shorten those up so that it doesn't take so much time for a train to disappear and return. You can always extend the time by slowing the train or stopping it, but its hard to shorten the time when you have a lot of track to traverse. I realize you need enough length so you can drop below the other tracks at a decent grade, so maybe you do need all that length. Just something to try to optimize if you're getting down to the nitty gritty details.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

That's correct, still just two reversing sections. Will 100% be DCC so no issues there. 

The sidings on the front side of the yard are somewhat problematic, accessing them clogs up the main


The reverse loop leads are unfortunately necessary to be that long to get the elevation to go under the rest of the layout. As is its already a 3% grade. The only other way would be to tuck the loops into the corner, but that would be extremely tight, somewhere around 10" radius and be difficult to access.

I played with it in SCARM's simulator and the turn around time doesn't really bother me, its about a 300" from leaving the scene to reemerging, and 75" or so of that is the tail end of the train. So really your only traveling ~225". If you run the train at 5 inch/sec (scale 45MPH) its only out of sight for about 45 seconds.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Thelic said:


> The sidings on the front side of the yard are somewhat problematic, accessing them clogs up the main


I think its somewhat common, from what I've seen in the real world, that the mainline can go through the center of a yard. If you're putting engine services on the opposite side of the mainline, you're only going to be moving engines from one side to the other. So that's not going to clog your main for much time. One thing you could try with your 2 track spur is to have it crossover your mainline and branch from your yard lead rather than having it branch from your mainline. Not sure how prototypical that might be, but I really think you'd like having an engine house and other engine services.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

After some Google Maps research I can confirm, your quite right Mark. It seems they use spurs off the main in my area quite frequently for service tracks. I suppose the short duration doesn't clog up the main nearly as bad as classifying a train.

In fact having the service track buried in the back of my yard mean I lose use of the whole rear track, as it would have to be left empty to access the engine services. Moving it to the front off the main is a much better solution.

I've added a two track fueling depot and a small two track engine shop. I'll probably use one of tracks for maintenance of way equipment. The local yard doesn't do any engine maintenance, the nearest I can tell is about 400 miles down the mainline where they have what looks to be a 6 bay shop.

I think your right, having these on the layout adds to its completeness and act as small industries which just adds to the possible operations. They are also very compact compared to a factory or container yard.

As far as construction goes, I was considering just using a 3/4" plywood as a base and then building up from there, using plywood cross members as risers for the elevated track. I'd have to cut holes in the bottom to place and access switch machines, access hidden track, and to save on weight, but I think it would make nice compact build.

Basically a 3/4" plywood sheet with a 1" to 6" tall separation and then a second 3/4" sheet cut to the track plan. I think this should be plenty strong, if not over kill. My 120 gallon fish tank sits on two 3/4" plywood sheets laminated together.

My only issue is is the 6 switches at zero elevation, I suppose I could use some linkages to reach these.


----------



## Thelic

Ok, so the worst section for access is along the back right side where the hidden higher track is in front of the lower hidden track. The section is about 24" long. Here's a cross section.










You get 2-9/32" of space to access from the side, or you can go down the tunnel entrance which is a difficult reach, or from the back corner reaching up the line.

I'm pretty sure I can get my hand in there, if not the CFO certainly can.

On the other side the heights are reversed, with the lower hidden track in front.

Access to the remainder of the layout is trivial in comparison.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I don't think you need to worry too much about accessing the leads that go to your reverse loops. Since they are just plain track, you aren't likely to get a derailment on the leads. When laying that track, be extra careful with joints and avoid kinks and you should be fine. Derailments are more likely to happen at your turnouts, so that's where I'd spend time being sure you can reach there. If you have any type of uncoupling problem, the cars will roll back down to your reverse loops due to gravity.

You'll probably want to use some type of track cleaning car to clean the underneath track. Its much easier than trying to reach the hidden track by hand.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

Good point about the rolling back.

I've sketched where I think I'll need cross members. I tried to keep no more than 16" centers, some areas required more for inflection points in the grade.









Unfortunately SCARM doesn't allow me to put turnouts on grade and there are at least three that I'd want on a slight grade.


----------



## Thelic

So I've been up to some pull testing this morning.

*Test Parameters:*
Kato N Scale Es44ac Locomotives
Kato N Scale Bethgon Coalporter Cars, c/w Load.
Kato N scale Unitrack
Metal Wheels
Straight, New Polished Track
Constant Grade
Entire Train on Grade

*Results:*
*2.0% - Single Engine*
16 Cars (max train length) - No slippage, completes section without issue.

*2.5% - Single Engine*
8 Cars - No slippage, completes section without issue.
9 Cars - Minor slippage on acceleration at slow speed, completes section.
10 Cars - Minor slippage on trouble locations at slow speed, slippage on acceleration, completes section.
11 Cars - Minor slippage on trouble locations at slow speed, slippage on acceleration, completes section.
12 Cars - Constant slippage any speed, cannot reliably complete section.

*2.5% - Two Engines*
16 Cars (max train length) - No slippage, completes section without issue.

*3.0% - Single Engine*
7 Cars - No slippage, completes section without issue.
8 Cars - Minor slippage on acceleration at slow speed, completes section.
9 Cars - Minor slippage on trouble locations at slow speed, slippage on acceleration, completes section.
10 Cars - Constant slippage any speed, cannot reliably complete section.

*3.0% - Two Engines*
16 Cars (max train length) - No slippage, completes section without issue.

*3.5% - Single Engine*
5 Cars - No slippage, completes section without issue.
6 Cars - Minor slippage on acceleration at slow speed, completes section.
7 Cars - Minor slippage on trouble locations at slow speed, slippage on acceleration, completes section.
8 Cars - Minor slippage on trouble locations at slow speed, slippage on acceleration, completes section.
9 Cars - Constant slippage any speed, cannot reliably complete section.

*3.5% - Two Engines*
16 Cars (max train length) - Minor slippage on acceleration at slow speed, completes section.


I noticed in my test one particular portion of track gave the engines trouble. It would seem that having the second engine really helps avoid slippage on problem sections, perhaps the distributed power bridges the gap on these slippery sections.

In any case I think I should avoid anything over 2.5%, especially since I'll be using gentle curves through these sections.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Interesting numbers! Thanks for posting the results of your testing.

2.5% is the maximum grade that I chose for my layout just based on general wisdom I've seen posted on this forum. Your numbers seem to confirm that guideline.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

So I've pulled the trigger on the track. Should be here in a week or so. All Peco Code 55.


So now I'm looking at the best way to block it before I go on to buy the electronics.

Starting with the reverse loops and staging, I think this is fairly simple to get the best bang for your buck. Using the ramps as reversing sections will allow for 4 loops with only two auto reversing units.









It looks like Digitrax has released a new BXPA1 auto reversing unit with single zone detection and transponding. A pair of these should work nicely, especially since I won't need sub-blocks on the ramps since I won't be parking trains on them. These are also only marginally more expensive than a standard auto reversing unit.

The rest of the loops can be handled by a BDL168 or similar.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Yep, not much complexity on your lower level track plan, so blocks are pretty straight forward.

Have you decided if you're going to exclude turnouts from your blocks? If so, are you going to still put detection on them? As a reminder, you don't need detection on your turnouts, but if you add it, then you can be sure to lock out changing the points on the turnout when its occupied. These decisions will greatly affect your hardware requirements of course.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

I'd need to include the first turnouts on the reversing section in order to get away with using only two auto reversing units.

I think the rest could be left out of blocks. I'm still not sure how to handle the spurs. 

In one case while I'm switching I'd like them reserved, but if I leave and engine or detectable car on the spur I don't want to lose the siding.

For that reason I'm leaning towards having the switches all on non detection sections. Maybe its worth it just to run 4 auto reversing units to simplify wiring. That would also give me transponding on the staging tracks.

Is train controller able to handle spanning switches with blocks? Like would I be able to park a train on a switch and have the switch locked out without detection on the switch?


----------



## jackpresley

First, thanks for post #47. I was just stretched my plan some to avoid steeper grades and your data shows I'll be happy I did.

That Peco looks nice. I may wish I'd gone that way in the end.


----------



## Thelic

I figure if its worth doing its worth spending the extra to make sure I don't regret it.

I fly RC helicopters and when I started out with a half measure and it turned into a nightmare of failures caused by cheap radio equipment. Do you know how frustrating it is to crash an RC helicopter when its not even your own poor piloting ability!

Same reason I went with Kato locomotives, every review of them seem to regard them as the top of the heap as far as the mechanical side goes. They may not be the most detailed (though I find them fantastic) but I figure I'll spend a lot less time swearing about them than something a little less dependable.


----------



## jackpresley

Thelic said:


> I fly RC helicopters and when I started out with a half measure and it turned into a nightmare of failures caused by cheap radio equipment. Do you know how frustrating it is to crash an RC helicopter when its not even your own poor piloting ability!


I could bore you all night with my RC tales. They're all hangared and the only thing I fly now is a Mavic with DJI goggles. I bring that up because it plays into my logic to follow my local hobby shop's advice to go with Kato Unitrack instead of Atlas code 55. When i told him it was my first N scale layout, he said something about "Do you want to be wondering if it was your track laying skill or the track? You'll spend more time operating than debugging with the Kato Unitrack." It didn't take much to convince me. I think I might have sacrificed a little/lot of prototypical look for reliability. No doubt it will be easier to "fly" like the Mavic.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Thelic said:


> I'd need to include the first turnouts on the reversing section in order to get away with using only two auto reversing units.


Removing those turnouts from the block won't require you to add more reversing units. Those turnouts can continue to have the same polarity as the lead track, just don't include them in the block detection wiring.



Thelic said:


> I think the rest could be left out of blocks. I'm still not sure how to handle the spurs.
> 
> In one case while I'm switching I'd like them reserved, but if I leave and engine or detectable car on the spur I don't want to lose the siding.


My strong advice is to make each spur a separate block. I think it would be a major mistake to put them within some other block. First of all, as you mention, you don't want an engine or other detectable car on a spur to make it look like any part of the mainline or siding is occupied. Second, blocks are used as destination or starting points, so routing an engine/train to/from a spur really needs to have the spur be a separate block from the mainline just for this type of source/destination logic. Third, block boundaries are useful triggers for braking/stopping markers. If your spur doesn't have a separate block boundary, it makes it more difficult to accurately stop your engine within it.



Thelic said:


> Is train controller able to handle spanning switches with blocks? Like would I be able to park a train on a switch and have the switch locked out without detection on the switch?


Train Controller also has the concept of a route between blocks which is what is normally defined by your turnouts. So a route can pass through multiple turnouts and all of those turnouts can/will be locked at once if you have them all on the same detector. Normally your trains won't stop on a turnout. Trains only stop in blocks. The only time they would stop on a turnout is if the train is long enough that its tail is left back over a turnout or even into another block.

When trains are running under full automation, there's very little danger of TrainController changing a point while the train is over a turnout. The software only changes the points when necessary for an approaching train. It doesn't "anticipate" needing to change the points after a train passes, so the train is usually long gone before the points behind it are changed for the next train coming. TrainController will also lock the points in a route between blocks if a train is spanning those two blocks. My opinion is that locking the points on turnouts is most useful when you are running under manual control and you don't trust yourself to not inadvertently move the points manually.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

Thanks for confirming, keeping all the spurs separate will allow way more flexibility for automation.

The switch groupings in circled are what really worry me.









The top one the train will need to be able to span the switch leading to the spur while using the siding. I suppose the software will see both ends as occupied and then have no possible way for a train other than the one spanning it to use the switch, therefore its locked?

A similar case exists with the switches leading to the yard spur tracks, where a full length train will have to span the switch leading to one of the spurs in order to use the other spur.

The inside bottom double track curve (blue) is just long enough to hold a full length train but requires that the first switch leading into the yard be fouled to allow a train on the mainline (red) to access the first yard track (green).

Everything is extremely tight on the layout, but I'm confident that I could run it myself, the battle will be to make sure the software can do the same.

The yard tracks all fit 80" trains, what would be the best approach to automating a 76" train to fit? Just use 2" sub-blocks at each end as stop markers? Have the train slow to a crawl as it enters the section and then stop when reaching the far sub-block?

I guess the same would be done for each spur, add a sub block at the end to avoid having anything pushed past the end of the rails?


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I don't think you'll have any problems representing your circled areas with TrainController. I actually entered your track plan into my copy of TrainController to give it a try to be sure. Here's what it looks like:









This is of course a logical representation of your layout, so it doesn't look exactly like your track plan. I may not of gotten the exact left vs. right hand turnouts in all locations, but it shows proof of concept.

I've also uploaded a zipped copy of the TrainController v9.0 Gold file too. You can download and install a trial version of TrainController v9.0 Gold to open and run it in simulator mode. I forget all the exact limitations of their trial version, so I'm hoping this will work.

TrainController is able to calculate train position based on speed and time, so it doesn't need to have a separate contact indicator for every stopping point. I think making three separate occupancy zones in each block is overkill. You really only need them for very precise stopping, like over an uncoupler or if you you're trying to exactly squeeze a long train into a block that barely holds it. I don't know what the recommended minimum detection length would be since I don't us this method on my own layout.

Regarding detection on your turnouts: I think you can put some of your turnouts on the same detector when they are physically close to one another. One thing I would be careful of is to not put turnouts on the same detector when you want to run parallel routes through the set of turnouts. For example, I think you can put the 3 turnouts between Yard 1, Yard 2, Yard 3 and Yard Lead onto one detector. You want the turnouts between Mainline 3 and Mainline 4 on their own detector. That way you can have routes through these series of turnouts that don't lock out the parallel route. Hope I'm explaining that clearly.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

That's awesome Mark! I will have to try the simulator!

I think the only places I would have to add the switch to a detection block is the fork switch on the reverse loop lead as it would need to be within the auto reversing section. Then because the auto reversing unit is also a detector it gets incorporated into that block. I don't think this should cause any problems since only a single path is ever available.

Of course I could also just use two of the reverser/detector units for each loop and save a lot of fiddling around. This only gives a single detection section to stop the train in. The inner reverse loop has about 16" extra track compared to the longest train I plan to run. I imagine train controller can stop a train reliably with that kind of tolerance?

Reading the manual it really seems like the blocks are designed to not include switches what so ever. It may be best to avoid it even if it means a little more hardware cost.


Counting all the detection sections I get a total of 23.


5	Mainline
6	Spur
2	Siding
2	Reverse Ramp
1	Yard lead
4	Engine Service
3	Yard

If I use four BXPA1's for the reverse loops that leaves 19 sections. I was considering using Digitrax BXP88's instead of BDL168's if the accuracy for stopping is great enough.

Would it work to use one or two of the BXP88's outputs for the switch groups, really just using the power management feature and then ignore the addressing for detection?

I really want to keep the wiring separate for each of the modules, so having one BXP88 on the left and two on the right seems like it should work.

If this all work the difference really comes down to three BXP88's or two BDL168's and then two PM42's. It really comes out as a wash. Actually a wash with transponding...


For turnout control I was leaning towards Cobalt IP Digitals, simply because they have considerably less wiring than using separate decoders with Tortoises. The combined units look pretty slick.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I count 27 detection blocks. While you got the 2 reversing loop ramps, you forgot the 4 end blocks on your reversing loops in your list of blocks.

If you go with one section per block, I'd get 4 BXPA1s for the reverse loop end blocks, 1 BXP88 that I'd use for your yard area, and then either 2 BXP88s or 1 BDL168 (and PM42) for all the other blocks. I think that's the bare minimum. That would give you transponding on a significant number (perhaps all) of your blocks.

If you then add any additional sections within certain blocks for stopping accuracy purposes or add detection on turnouts, that will increase the hardware board count.

On my layout, I've found that TrainController can calculate and achieve stopping distances accurately to about plus or minus 3/4 of an inch. I have relatively small blocks compared to you, so you may experience a bit less accuracy, but that's just a guess. It probably also depends on the consistency of your locomotives. I've contemplated adding some IR detectors for increased stopping accuracy, but I haven't proven that necessary yet. If you really have 16 inches to play with, I'm pretty sure TC can stop your trains within that margin of error without extra hardware. BTW, to achieve this accuracy, you'll need to speed profile each of your engines. TC has tools to do that, so its not hard to do.

Mark


----------



## Thelic

Yep, I double subtracted the 4 reverse loops...

I think I'll try it with the following:

*West Module Electronics*

*BXP88 #1*
Engine Service 1
Engine Service 2
Mainline 3
Mainline 2
Yard 1
Yard 2
Yard 3
Engine Service 1 & 2 Turnouts

*BXP88 #2*
West Yard Ladder
Mainline 1
West Siding Turnouts
West Spur 1
West Spur 2
Siding 2
West Reverse Loop Lead / Siding Turnouts
West Reverse Loop Turnouts

*BXPA1 #1*
West Outer Reverse Loop

*BXPA1 #2*
West Inner Reverse Loop



*East Module Electronics *

*BXP88 #3*
Siding 1
West Spur 3
Mainline 5
East Spur/Siding Turnouts
West Reverse Loop Lead
East Reverse Loop Lead
East Reverse Loop Lead/ Yard Lead Turnouts
East Reverse Loop Turnouts

*BXP88 #4*
Yard Lead
Mainline 4
East Yard Ladder
Engine Service 3 & 4
East Spur 1
East Spur 2
East Spur 3
Crossover/ Engine Service 3 & 4Turnouts

*BXPA1 #3*
East Innner Reverse Loop

*BXPA1 #4*
East Outer Reverse Loop


This solution is super simple to wire, especially with everything being within 5 feet of its respective control board and then using combination decoder/slow motion turnout machines. Its also broken up into a healthy number of sections, should make troubleshooting fairly easy.


----------



## SantaFeJim

What a GREAT thread. Thelic did a wonderful job on his design as well as identifying and listing his electrical component requirements.

Mark did an excellent job with the logical diagram using TrainController software. 

I came across the T/C software a few months ago. Watched many how-to videos on YouTube and am going to use it on my next layout HO which is about 85% designed. I hope that construction will start in the 4-5 weeks. I will document it’s construction, wiring on the This forum.

Stay tuned.


----------

