voyttek's layout

Re: voyttek's layout

Postby voyttek » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:09 pm

Wow, I am so impressed with the ideas, and as I am examining all your suggestions, I am learning "in a hurry" .
I figured I would include few more pictures to illustrate better some of my puzzle.

I definitely would like to improve the track; definitely change the north access to the station and hope to improve the south end as well. Too bad you are so far, it would be best to get together and have a bottle of "something" to help navigate.
Coming to Canada ???

Also I wonder if I were to even widen the bridges somehow, what would be the best way to control the turnouts ( where would I place the switches? )
Attachments
IMG_3509.jpg
South side - shows main line tracks located at the higher elevation than Freight Yard
IMG_3510.jpg
South side - view from the top; the width of the bridge is 65 mm only
IMG_3512.jpg
North entrance
voyttek
 
Posts: 107
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: voyttek's layout

Postby ConducTTor » Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:22 pm

Is it prototypical to have switches on bridges?
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: voyttek's layout

Postby j p » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:11 pm

ConducTTor wrote:Is it prototypical to have switches on bridges?


Yes, of course, especially in big cities.
The entire San Francisco Transbay terminal is elevated. The railroad is not there anymore but the terminal is still used as a bus terminal.
Image

Some more switches on the bridges from Pittsburgh:
Image

A perfect example from Europe would be Stadtbahn in Berlin:
Image
Image

More from Prague:
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/fK-vKE-VCYs/maxresdefault.jpg
http://www.navzduchu.cz/user-data/IMG_3881.jpg

And the ultimate example: bridges is several levels from Tokyo (with switches) :lol:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vf55sFNSQDE/Tf9-yNeu6JI/AAAAAAAAAHM/ETg-qsfaWS4/s1600/Tokyo+Station2.JPG
j p
 
Posts: 1194
Images: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: voyttek's layout

Postby Juup » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:31 pm

Hi Voyttek,

First, thank you for pronouncing my name correctly :) It is indeed pronounced 'Yuup' rather than 'Juup' (assuming an English language reading).

Your buildings are now doubly impressive to me as I take it you have scratch built them!!

On your station layout ... I told you we'd get your head spinning!! Let me see if I understand you right. I am using my attached figure to try to understand.

Blue and Green lines are separate single lines. One is electrified. Not sure which one, but perhaps less important. Right so far?

I think part of the suggestions so far are about each of these lines having a clear straight station track to enter and exit ... or to run through the station at speed. That is what I am trying to capture with my visual.

However, looking carefully at your photos. I think such a clear straight run for each line through your station is complicated by the inclusion of the additional track at the front - the red track in my visual. By including this red track you are forced to move the third track - the green line - further up and away from the front, thereby preventing a clean and straight run for the green line. I suspect JPs suggestion ignores this geometrical challenge. Can you do without the red extra track?

I would avoid DKWs as these are main lines, but if you need to compromise these might play a role.

Turnouts on the bridges. That would be cool indeed :) Nice pictures from JP!!! But yes, how do you connect up your Conrads? Might be an interesting engineering challenge!!

Next, I am struggling to understand the double crossovers to get from the blue to the green lines and vice versa. If these are separate single lines, why bother? Am I missing something?

But yes, you want to get to the other station tracks from each of these two lines - and from both directions. On the left side this seems more doable (I included for this in my attached figure); on the right side this seems trickier given that the angle of the bridge as compared to the station is more acute. So, that remains a challenge, but one I am sure there is a solution for. Inverting the orange turnout might be the start of a solution.

Sorry to impose my own colour coding, and do tell me if I got everything wrong :mrgreen:

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

Re: voyttek's layout

Postby Juup » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:43 pm

And quickly, I think JPs suggestion to use DKWs might help especially on the right side; adding only a single DKW connecting tracks 3, 4 and 5 (or 4, 5 and 6 if you keep the red line) would give you an extra 166mm to play with. Might make all the difference.
User avatar
Juup
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom

Re: voyttek's layout

Postby j p » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:13 pm

voyttek wrote:Wow, I am so impressed with the ideas, and as I am examining all your suggestions, I am learning "in a hurry" .
I figured I would include few more pictures to illustrate better some of my puzzle.

I definitely would like to improve the track; definitely change the north access to the station and hope to improve the south end as well. Too bad you are so far, it would be best to get together and have a bottle of "something" to help navigate.
Coming to Canada ???

Also I wonder if I were to even widen the bridges somehow, what would be the best way to control the turnouts ( where would I place the switches? )


You can place the actuators far away from the turnouts. Do you remember how is/was this done on the real railroad? Modern lines have turnouts with electric motors controlled by a computer from far away. (that is what you'd probably use for the station)
How was this done in the old time? The turnouts were switched manually from a signal tower!
You can do the same on the layout if you don't have enough space for the drive right under the turnout. Also with the type of bridges you use. One wire for each turnout placed at the bottom side of the bridge would not disturb it. Even on the real railway, there are communication cables attached to some bridges.
The drives for the bridge turnouts can be hidden behind the end of the bridge.
j p
 
Posts: 1194
Images: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: voyttek's layout

Postby ConducTTor » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:22 pm

If you do put switches on the bridge(s), I can help you figure out how to move them.
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: voyttek's layout

Postby voyttek » Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:37 am

Next, I am struggling to understand the double crossovers to get from the blue to the green lines and vice versa. If these are separate single lines, why bother? Am I missing something?



Reason to have double crossovers is to change tracks in order to stay on the same loop.
Violet to violet and light green together, which I "attempted" to mark on your drawing.

By now I understand that the most important would be to redesign the North access to the Station, so the trains can enter full speed.

This is what JP and LVG1 been trying to help me with - thank you.

Thank you ConducTTor for your offer to figure out how to switch turnouts, I might need it.
Attachments
Screen shot 2014-06-17 at 9.04.17 PM.jpg
IMG_2163.jpg
my original draft to illustrate the configuration of track
voyttek
 
Posts: 107
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: voyttek's layout

Postby Juup » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:33 am

Ah :) Do trains travel in both diections on both violet and green? If there IS a single direction of travel on one or both of these single lines that may affect the configuration of crossovers.

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

Re: voyttek's layout

Postby LVG1 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:03 pm

j p wrote:
LVG1 wrote:
j p wrote:..., hopefully you'd get the message)


No, unfortunately I have no idea what you're aiming to achieve with your suggestion.

Of course, the eastern through track needs a connection to the western station tracks, too. But that's what you eliminated in your last picture...


Those are 2 lines.
My suggestion which eliminates all the problems is above your post :)

OK. Drawing does not help, I can try to explain the problem with your suggestion in writing:
...

Okay, now I've understood what you mean.
I presumed that the third track was the through track for the upper line. So I didn't realize that you came from another view on this point. I already had remarked my concerns about through tracks leading over the bended way of turnouts.
However, this solution is very rare but possible.

Regarding your suggestions:
Double connections with a diamont in the middle—is there a technical term for them in English?—have been almost completely removed especially after World War II. Only very few of them still exist.
They are an eye-catcher on every model railroad layout. So it would be nice to have one. But having more than one on a layout with postwar topic would look quite strange in my eyes. So at least for one of the station's entraces another solution should be looked for.

ConducTTor wrote:Is it prototypical to have switches on bridges?

That's an excellent question.
The answer is: YES and NO.
You'll have to consider two things—surroundings and construction.

You'll find turnouts on bridges (almost) only in areas with high building density and few space.
The reason is simple—you need bridges with a high sturdiness in all directions. And they are clearly more expensive than usual bridges or embankments.
Does the topic of voyttek's layout fit this description?
I'ld say: No!

Nowadays, you'll find turnouts on bridges (almost) only if the bridge is made of concrete. They are closed flat constructions with lots of supports beneath which are independent of load spreading and cross forces.
More than half a century ago, there were turnouts also installed on steel bridges of elevated heavyrail lines (known as Metro and U-Bahn, respectively, in Europe). But also these steel bridges were constructions with lots of supports and lots of diagonal bracings for high transverse rigidity.
Unfortunately, that's not the type of bridges voyttek uses. Most bridges—especially suspension bridges, most types of lattice girder bridges, fish beam bridges and all types of bridges mainly based on longitudinal carriers (which fits almost all steel bridges)—are constructed for straight track only. A train changing the track on them would seriously endanger the stability of the bridge.
So, would a turnout be placed on a bridge of voyttek's construction?
No way!!!

voyttek wrote:Also I wonder if I were to even widen the bridges somehow, ...

Bridges are expensive structures on a rail line. So they're constructed as space and material saving as functional. That's why they are never wider than absolutely necessary. So I'ld suggest to not widen them.

voyttek wrote:Coming to Canada ???


Great idea!!! :thumbup: :grin:
I'ld love to see Canada!
Unfortunately, I'm currently waiting for money from my mom, because I even can't afford a ticket for the 100-mile homebound trip... :cry:


I'm continuing to think about solutions for the station's entraces.
Possibly, you could change the relevance of the various tracks. Currently, tracks two and three are supposed to be the through tracks. May be, tracks one and two or tracks one and three could take this task? Or not?
I'll think about this furthermore. And when I have an idea, I'll post it.
"Let's eat, grandpa."
Punctuation marks save lives!
User avatar
LVG1
 
Posts: 864
Images: 34
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:01 am
Location: Guben / Gubin; Germany? Poland?—No, Lusatia!

PreviousNext

Return to Layouts / Track Plans

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests