I only have a small amount of space to put a layout and I am using N scale. Here is one that I am looking at currently. I do have the option to put a narrow piece off the left side like a shelf (2ft x 4 to 5ft) layout for staging etc. but unsure if I could work it off this plan.
Here is a link to the picture and thanks in advance for your suggestions and comments
Ok, let me see if I can get the link to work right.
A quick break down of what I see. Two ovals one with a passing siding, crossed over in an "inside" figure 8 manner. Yery large yard & loco facilities for this size of a layout. Two industries. All industries, yard, and facilities are co-located with the passing siding on the outside oval.
Comments:1. Personally, I've never liked bridges over my yards.2. This looks like a layout where the trains are stored in the yard and then taken out and run loops. So if you like making up and breaking up trains and then watching them loop I think it is great.3. I think it would be better if you could get the industries separated from the "town" with the yard, specifically off the inside loop. That way a train on the inside loop could be doing something other than just orbiting.4. If another passing track was put in somewhere the layout could be run like a single line railroad with two trains going the opposite direction.5. Staging could easily be added to the left but.....
6. If you have a 2x4 space to the left why not just encorporate that at the beginning. That would be an empire in N-scale.
Of course, my comments could be more meaningful if you told a little more about the goals that you have in mind for the layout. For example if you are interested in scenery this is a terrible track plan. If you just want to watch two trains roll around without interacting with each other this is a great plan. FYI - for the latter, many people get tired of watching trains circulate after a couple months.
Have you decided on a prototype railroad or will it be freelanced? Shortline or Class 1? What time era, e.g, steam, transistion, or modern. Do you like operations or mainly just running trains? Do you like having more track and less scenery or vice versa?
I'm asking all these questions because I can't tell if this is a "good" layout for you without this information. For example, if it's a shortline, youhave no way to interchange with a mainline road and you don't need a roundhouse at all. If it's a class 1, there's plenty of track but have you calculated the percent of grade you'll need to get up and over all those tracks? It's a marginal layout for operations but fine if you just want to watch trains run. Think about the answers to the questions I've asked and get back to us so we can talk some more.
Ok, I will try and be to brief on the answer to some of the questions above.
1. Freelance
2. Transitional Period
3. Little operations LOL. I like the idea of working on building trains and then watching them run round and round.
4. Track vs Scenery? develop the scenery around the industries etc. so, no giant mountain scenery etc unless I have to have a tunnel to accomplish the mix.
5. Small passanger train for bringing workers into the industrial area etc.
I also was considering elemenating the roundhouse to provide more room for either developing industrial area or maint. yard area.
Hope that provides some direction for a review. As you can see I want the best of all worlds in a little bit of space because my wife won't let me have the garage. LOL
Mike
Again, what do you like about the proposed layout? Not like about it? That matters far more than anything we say. Below are some general comments:
- One of the loops has to be used as the yard lead for classifying trains. This means that you will normally be making/breaking up a train on one loop, while running a train on the other loop. An alternative is to get rid of one loop, or go to a twice-around, and add a stand-alone yard with drill track, and arrival/departure track that does not occupy the main. See some of the literature on yard design.
- All the coupling/uncoupling has to be done towards the middle of the layout while you are running trains aroung the outside, which is typical of many "island" layouts. If you are using a manual uncoupling system such as skewers, you have to be careful about reaching in with trains going by under your reach-in arm. Using magnetic uncoupling reliably requires a greater degree of precision than normal in coupler adjustment, uncoupler placement, and slow-speed running and control of your locomotives. Many folks don't realize how uncoupling systems impact the usefulness of their track plans.
- Again, dictated by the size and complexity of your island layout, the curve radii seem to be pretty tight for reliable passenger car operations. If you are operating full length passenger cars with truck mounted couplers - about 6" long in N - you need a minimum of 12" radius for reliable operation of all makes of equipment. Some makes will do a slightly smaller radius reliably, but at the cost of ferocious overhang, and lack of underbody detail. The Layout Design Special Interest Group (LDSIG) recommends 18" minimum radius for full length passenger cars with body-mounted couplers (see <url>http://ldsig.org/wiki/index.php/Curve_radius_rule-of-thumb</url>). The NMRA curve radius recommendations are here - <url>http://www.nmra.com/standards/rp-11.html</url>.
- Train set passenger cars are generally specifically modified to go around the very tight radius cuves (18" in HO and 9.75" in N). They may be shortened or otherwise modified.
While the layout would not be my choice, it does appear to meet some of your criteria fairly well. Be aware that your interests may change before you even finish the layout, especially if you are new to the hobby. Don't be afraid to change the layout, even as you are building it.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
What I like? It appears to allow me the ability to run two trains at one time as well as the ability to work with a yard building trains. It does not leave a lot of room for extravigant scenery work but appears to be enough to add some variety.
Don't Like? Prob. the fact that at the top where the cross-over is there will appear to be a "short-circuite" according to the software. LOL
Unsure? expansion possibilities as room opens up.
mzungu wrote:Don't Like? Prob. the fact that at the top where the cross-over is there will appear to be a "short-circuite" according to the software.
Thanks for all the great comments working on some revisions now will post again soon the changes. Another forum member is working with me as welll through the design process. One change that is going to happen is that I am going to add to the lower left an extension that will run about 1.5ft to 2ft wide x 4ft long and make a large yard/shipping terminal and open up the center for a little more industry/scenery. Keep the comments and suggestions comming and I will post revisions as they are made.
Ok, here is an edited version. Thanks for all the comments and Thanks to PCarrell for his input, and help. Man he is good with RTS. LOL
Please make any comments and suggestions.
I would be tempted to move the connection between the yard and the main as far to the right as possible, to make the lead as long as possible. I think you need some runarounds at the end of the yard so the engines can escape after they bring a train in, unless they are always going to back in. I've seen other layouts in similar space, I'll try to look around.....
EDIT:
I sort of feel like it is too much track, but that may just be my bias. Have a look at this:
http://kc.pennsyrr.com/layouts/dvollmer/Trackplan.html
Here is his main page, lots of pics.
http://kc.pennsyrr.com/layouts/dvollmer/
And some videos:
http://kc.pennsyrr.com/layouts/dvollmer/videolinks.html
Remember this is on a door. It is a double track main, which is a good idea on a smaller layout because there really isn't room for passing tracks. It is counterintuitive, but this layout really shows it.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Here is a video of the layout I referenced above. I had to kick myself to remind myself that it is on a door!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veEvKHFGd5s
I'm agreeing with Jeff. You can do exactly the same thing with one loop instead of two and you can eliminate some of the difficult track work.
ON the other hand, if you move the inner loop out to parallel the outer loop, you could model an busy double main and still have all the local traffic to work (or more local traffic if you model a busier city. Dave V's layout is a fine example. Be sure to look at the pictures.
You would definately need the runaround in the yard if you double the main though. BTW: You could model a much more functional yard in terms of service, storage, sorting, etc. if you eliminate the turntable.
I'm still getting the idea that you are fitting track to the space rather than to your vision of how see your railroad. But I think you are getting closer.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
The more interesting small layouts I have seen have had relatively less trackwork and left plenty of room for scenery. I would err on the side of "less is more" as you do this. That Pennsy layout mentioned above is a prime example of this. It also has the nice side benefit of making trackwork easier and less expensive. Of course, thats from the perspective of looking at them through photography, not operating them.
This is the track plan I am currently working on that is even smaller then yours:
http://www.homefry.com/mrr/image/whitefieldR1.jpg
Which was designed to let me practice my MRR skills more then provide long term operating interest.. but it fits my desire to leave plenty of room for scenery and still provide interesting operation. Trains enter from cassette at the top right, switch the industries and interchange below, and then return from whence they came.
Chris
Bear "It's all about having fun."