I read somewhere that a feeder every 8 feet of track should suffice. But if I was building a large permanent layout using flex track, I would solder a feeder to each piece of track. That would make the electrical conductivity bulletproof.
I don't know about the 8 foot thing but as a rule, I have always used flex track on all my layouts I have worked on and I do run a feeder for each section of flex track. Is it needed, nope, but can it hurt...nope. I always try to get the smoothest track and best power feeds possible. Simple extra steps during the track laying phase will always reward you later in the project.
Johne- I really like the new layout design. From my reading... The idea/principle/myth/whatever is that not having feeders to every piece of track means you are relying on rail joiners (or "Unijoiners") to conduct electricity. Over time, rail joiners loosen/oxidize and cause dead spots on a layout. If you ballast track, it becomes difficult to add feeders to those dead spots later on. The guys and resources I grew to trust, lead me to follow this method. Although, I don't add feeders to any piece less than or equal to 64mm. I just wanted to play it safe and build a super solid layout. Even if it is overkill. Also, it may be just me, but this seems to be more common among DCC guys than DC.
I guess I'm showing my recent adoption of using flex track heavily on a layout because you get around that problem when you solder many of the joints together and thus need less feeders.
I've had a sleep and a rethink,and now I see what everyone else saw, not worth the trouble to add two more turnouts, just use the inside loop for the yard lead. Sorry for the interruption.
I guess being retired and the boat being covered for the winter I must have to much time on my hands. I keep fooling around with the layout and came up with another scenerio but cant make up my mind if I like it or not. Well anyway this design software is a lot of fun to play with so here is the latest. What do you guys think?
Johne the turnouts from yellow to yellow connection (just above and left of center) will not be possible due to incline (if I am reading your plan correctly) peace, Gary
I saw that I am going to try and push that switch further down to the bottomleft and see if that will work.
Honestly, if you are going to turn the "branch line" into a through route like that, ditch the double track mainline and go with a single track mainline and somehow rework the branch line so that it's a proper loop rather than a reverse loop. You are getting close to creating a giant plate of spaghetti with this design. I also would turn the switchback into the spur for the coal mine and using the current spot you have for the mine as just a small yard for exchanging cars. In addition, I would rework that yard so that switching the mine wouldn't block the branch line.
Not only is the connection at the yellow branch impossible to build (pretty much no matter where you "push" it), it doesn't serve any operational purpose, and in fact it introduces an electrical short circuit; as it is, your plan now as a reverse loop, which will require special wiring, even with DCC. Some of the freight yard tracks seem to collide with the mainline; are they supposed to go over or under? Either way, the grades will be harsh and placing the yard tracks on a grade will defeat the purpose of a yard. The way the switches in the yard tracks have been changed around actually prevents you from using the lumber yard siding--you can't get to it without backing trains into the enginehouse. And you have introduced a number of undesirable (and avoidable) S-turns in multiple places on the plan, as well as some unnecessary sharp bends. Basically, I am not able to comprehend what advantages the revisions offer you. If there is something you felt was missing from the original plan, then explain what it is you wanted to accomplish, and we can find a logical way to address it. Otherwise, you're actually painting yourself into a corner.
Sorry for the "tough love," but I thought you were seriously considering the changes you'd made. I'm happy to help revise the plan if I knew what you wanted but weren't getting. Carry on having fun...
John, Playing around with the design program is a lot of fun. And then posting them to get feedback will help you understand design considerations. Which one are you using? I use Anyrail.
I am using SCARM but it has a lot of glitches I have the free sample of AnyRail and it seems to run much better and is easier to use. I will probably download the full version.
Thats ok I look for you guys to disect a plan thats how a hobby is learned. I went through this 50 years ago when I was learning my trade(carpentry/cabinet maker) and it served me well.
I want to know if this makes sense to any one else besides me.I added a third siding to the coal mine so I can bring in a load of empty cars uncouple and back down the third siding to pick up a load of full cars.
It makes sense and I see what you have done but the original way was more prototypical for the end of a line at a coal loader. I prefer the original coal mine spur design myself but it is your choice and your project. Ultimately, are you happy with the change is what matters. John
I understand what you're trying to do, and I applaud you for the effort. This arrangement is a little smoother--
