Building Eisenbach

Re: Building Eisenbach

Postby Juup » Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:30 pm

Thanks for the encouraging comments!!

Making progress now on remainder of the mainline run ... more large radius curves to come ... oh and I am discovering that smooth running is harder to achieve in transitions between gradients.

Another update to come in two or three weeks.

Juup
User avatar
Juup
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom

Re: Building Eisenbach

Postby Juup » Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:25 am

Hi Everyone,

Finally completed the full double track mainline :)

A photo of the construction ... slow progress in order to get smooth transitions. Glued wooden blocks and 6mm plywood.
1Construction.jpg


Then two views of the completed section of double track mainline on the right side of the layout - the smooth large radius stretches that will be visible (not hidden by tunnels etc).
2Finished1.JPG

3Finished2.JPG


Then a closer view of the turnouts that eventually will connect the mainline to the main station. I stuck with a 12 degree Bemo HOm code 80 crossing. The sleeper distance is larger than Tillig TT track, but the sleeper size is much better than Peco HOm. I again ripped it apart to remove all the curious electrical connections between rails and frogs, and also reduced the length of the piece to include only the actual crossing bits, so to minimize the track length with differently spaced sleepers.
4ToStation.JPG


And finally my second YouTube video :grin:
Who can 1) spot the derailment, and 2) guess the manufacturer of the two 'Schiebeplanenwagen' pulled by the steam loco?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMEwbRTfbZ4

Next is to build the second control panel for the points on the left side of the room - left side staging and return track etc. Then onwards to the main station, which involves adding a second level baseboard on the left.

Fun fun fun!!!

Juup
User avatar
Juup
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom

Re: Building Eisenbach

Postby CN-TT » Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:58 pm

:thumbup:
I couldn't see or hear a derailment!?
I haven't seen these schiebeplanenwagen' before, my guess would be Roco.
You gotta do much more than believe if you really wanna change things!

"The GuiTTar Case" Gallery
"The GuiTTar Case" YouTube
User avatar
CN-TT
 
Posts: 367
Images: 99
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:51 pm
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Re: Building Eisenbach

Postby gerhard_k » Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:09 pm

Juup wrote:I am discovering that smooth running is harder to achieve in transitions between gradients.
Juup

Can you tell us of your experience, numerically?
In H0 (my previous scale), the guideline that seemed to work was to allow 1 foot of length for each % of grade change, assuming full-length passenger cars or 85-foot freight cars. So, for example, coming from a 3% grade to level would require a vertical curve length of 3 feet - that can really steepen a short grade, and is an aspect which makes many published small track plans virtually un-buildable.
Now if your longest cars *and locos* are much shorter, it's probably ok to shorten the transition length accordingly.
Since TT cars are ~3/4 as long as H0, I was planning with 9 inches per % of grade change in my layout design.
Your comments?
Last edited by gerhard_k on Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sometimes you win... sometimes you learn.
gerhard_k
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Location: Annapolis MD USA

Re: Building Eisenbach

Postby j p » Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:13 pm

85 ft corresponds to 8½ inches in TT. So 9 inches should be enough.
j p
 
Posts: 1192
Images: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: Building Eisenbach

Postby ConducTTor » Sun Mar 22, 2015 2:35 am

The long gentle curves are glorious :clap:
What people think: "liberals/conservatives are ruining my country"
What the powerful know: divide and conquer
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8293
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: Building Eisenbach

Postby Juup » Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:20 am

On gradients, I know most people calculate these as a fraction of unit of rise over unit of length. So for instance 3 cm per 1 meter (100 cm) is a rise of 3/100. Is that then 3%?

I am actually working in degrees because I have the following really useful tool:

uploadfromtaptalk1427029434417.jpg


With such gentle gradients the measures in degree angle is not a very different number from fraction or percentage (my best guess without calculating is that 3/100 is equal to about 2 degrees. Obviously, with steeper gradients the difference between degrees and percentage becomes greater.

I located my sharpest transition (in a hidden section) from 0 degrees (0 percent) to 1.5 degrees (so about 2.2 percent) and this was achieved over about 18 inches. This transition is consistent with about 9 inches per one percent. However, looking at trains negotiating the transition I don't think I passed any limit. So 9 inches per one percent change should be fine even with longer vehicles.

So I think we are all agreed :)

I wonder also if Kuhn couplers would allow more abrupt transitions, and perhaps Peho's Clipskupplung even better still :) Currently I am using the new Tillig coupler.

Juup
Last edited by Juup on Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:46 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Juup
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom

Re: Building Eisenbach

Postby Juup » Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:48 am

CN-TT wrote:
I couldn't see or hear a derailment!?
I haven't seen these schiebeplanenwagen' before, my guess would be Roco.

They are Krokodil :)

uploadfromtaptalk1427032126181.jpg
User avatar
Juup
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom

Re: Building Eisenbach

Postby Juup » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:39 am

Note I edited my recent gradients post ... gradients always 'do my head in'.
Juup
User avatar
Juup
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom

Re: Building Eisenbach

Postby gerhard_k » Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:34 pm

Juup wrote:On gradients, I know most people calculate these as a fraction of unit of rise over unit of length. So for instance 3 cm per 1 meter (100 cm) is a rise of 3/100. Is that then 3%?
Juup

That is the customary usage.
Juup wrote:With such gentle gradients, the measures in degree angle is not a very different number from fraction or percentage (my best guess without calculating is that 3/100 is equal to about 2 degrees. Obviously, with steeper gradients the difference between degrees and percentage becomes greater.
Juup

Yes, the ratio between degrees and percentage is very close to linear linear until past 10 degrees. But the actual equivalence is 2 degrees = 3.5%. So your 1.5° is actually 2.6%.
Juup wrote:I located my sharpest transition (in a hidden section) from 0 degrees (0 percent) to 1.5 degrees (so about 2.2 percent) and this was achieved over about 18 inches. This transition is consistent with about 9 inches per one percent. However, looking at trains negotiating the transition I don't think I passed any limit. So 9 inches per one percent change should be fine even with longer vehicles.
Juup

I don't know what your longest vehicles are, but both in Europe and US, long streamlined passenger cars are 8.5 inches long in TT. The original guideline actually came from 1% per car length - I don't know how that was established, or maybe it was just an off-the-cuff guess, but it stuck. And it seems to work.
Anyway, it seems we are all agreed, and there may be a bit of extra room in the guideline to allow for less-than-perfect trackwork or coupler height settings.
Sometimes you win... sometimes you learn.
gerhard_k
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Location: Annapolis MD USA

PreviousNext

Return to Layouts / Track Plans

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests