Back to DC

[Chris333]

That and losing so much valuable weight.

Oh yeah I've got a million reasons...

[Sokramiketes]

First question is, would you want the trains to always emerge from the yard(s) in the same sequence, i.e. the order they were stored, or under user-control, or both?

I'm fine with a set order to start, trains leaving in the same sequence as what they were stored in for right now.  On the current end loops, I think I can get three tracks on each end.  So cycling 5 trains overall, with a lap being from one loop to the other, stopping, and another train being released to head back. 

Should be possible for user control, or a programmable sequence with some diode logic later, but I'd need new end loops to really do a full day's worth of trains anyway, so getting some simple variety in the train parade to start is fine. 

[Greg Elmassian]

So, I re-read the entire thread, and I don't see this suggestion.

Why not eliminate the reversing loops and just make it a long oval, squished in the center to look like a double track mainline?

Get's rid of all the complexity of relays, etc. If you want multiple trains, you just energize or de-energize a siding.

You certainly have room for the "double track" in the center of the layout.

Lots of this thread are about reducing complexity.

Greg

[mmagliaro]

So, I re-read the entire thread, and I don't see this suggestion.

Why not eliminate the reversing loops and just make it a long oval, squished in the center to look like a double track mainline?

Get's rid of all the complexity of relays, etc. If you want multiple trains, you just energize or de-energize a siding.

You certainly have room for the "double track" in the center of the layout.

Lots of this thread are about reducing complexity.

Greg

Indeed!  I like this idea.  And power-routing turnouts would take care of controlling the energizing of the sidings, so you would not need any block controls.  Just throw turnouts and run.

[Doug G.]

Yeah, that's called a dog bone. I have nothing against reverse loops per se but the dog bone makes wiring/operation a lot simpler, especially if you are the type of modeler who likes to turn on the power and watch the trains.

Doug

[strummer]

There you go; "problem" solved. 

Mark in Oregon

[DKS]

Somehow I think that if Mike had wanted a double-track mainline, he'd have done this already. But I could be wrong; I usually am.

[Point353]

Or, instead of a dogbone with both tracks out in front, simply make it a regular oval, but with the second/return track, along with the staging sidings, running/hidden behind the section with scenery. Since the single track through the scenery already splits into two tracks at either end, those two tracks could be continued behind the scenery, with the staging sidings for trains travelling in one direction on one of the tracks and the staging siding for trains travelling in the opposite direction on the other. That might further help simplify the control circuits.

[Sokramiketes]

Single track mainline boys.

And besides, the dog bone wiring only works if you never have a crossover between mainlines!

[DKS]

Next question: Do you prefer to stick with commercial turnouts, or might you be adventurous?

For Rick Spano's staging yard, I built a pair of special switch machines that have no points or frogs. The device moves one end of a piece of flex track in an arc to align with one of the storage tracks. The device is challenging to build, but it greatly simplifies operation (having only one motor to power) and it's very reliable, since there are no points or frogs to potentially detrail trains.

[Scottl]

Next question: Do you prefer to stick with commercial turnouts, or might you be adventurous?

For Rick Spano's staging yard, I built a pair of special switch machines that have no points or frogs. The device moves one end of a piece of flex track in an arc to align with one of the storage tracks. The device is challenging to build, but it greatly simplifies operation (having only one motor to power) and it's very reliable, since there are no points or frogs to potentially detrail trains.

This sounds very interesting, any information about how you did this would be of great interest.

[mmagliaro]

Single track mainline boys.

And besides, the dog bone wiring only works if you never have a crossover between mainlines!

But from the photos and description, I didn't think you planned on any crossovers other than the reverse loop ones and maybe a ladder around the loops for staging.  The dogbone idea would be to conceal the fact that it is a dogbone with scenery, and make it look like a single main.  Of course, a big advantage of the reverse loops is that the train goes back and forth through the scenery in different directions.

So if you want to maintain that look (two directions), the reverse loops are a better solution.
For what you showed in the photos, a simple optical trigger in each loop that reverses the mainline polarity and throws the two tortoise machines still looks like the way to go, to me.

[nkalanaga]

David:  Sounds like a stub switch on steroids...

[DKS]

David:  Sounds like a stub switch on steroids...

That's surprisingly close to what it is.

I'd approached two magazines to publish an article on it. MR and N Scale both refused, although a rudimentary overview of it appears in GMR.

[Sokramiketes]

I'm interested in hearing more about the elephant trunk in lieu of turnouts, for what could be version 2.0 of an end-loop-staging arrangement.  I can picture it being more reliable than a bunch of turnout points... as long as the indexing was of tight tolerance.

But, for version 1.0 I'll be adding turnouts to the existing end loops to have three tracks at each end of the layout for staging and train parading purposes.  Wonder if the Atlas turnouts will be available soon?