I have finaly learned how to use XTRKCAD and what a diference it makes. Below are my track plans for an HO scale freelance RR placed in the 40's to 50's. The premise is a logging and mining railroad that has wound up as a link for a small town that has grown up in the mountains. Most motive power will be steam and maybe some 1st generation desel. The grade is about 5.4% and I will be using Shayes, Climexes, Hieslers and Logging mallets with short trains to make the climb. I think the plan is fairly good but have a fealing it could be a lot better. Size is 21' by 8' with 2" foam, 30" lower deck with an 18" upper deck, power is Digitrex DCC and guage is standard. The plans are done in XTRKCAD and I would be happy to supply them.
I just noticed that I forgot to finish a siding, it is to the left of the interchange yard and is to go to a log mill (maybe).
What did I miss?
Lower level
Upper level
All put together
let's see if i have your plan figured out ...
a train starts in the large yard on the lower level (looks like a staging area) goes through a lot of hidden trackage , back through the yard again , through a crossover , and into the town on the lower level . there it does drops off cars for the town and for the upper level , maybe even does some switching in the town , picks up anything leaving town and heads off to the staging yard .
little shays come creeping down the hill from the upper level (i have the bachmann 3 truck , it looks like it's working soooo hard to go 20 mph!) , drops off ore , lumber etc. to be picked up by the next main line freight , picks up any cars for the town and industries up in the mountains and away it goes . on the upper level more shays and climaxes are hauling tress to sawmills , and ore to smelters etc.
tack a combine on the end of that shay's train and you have passenger operations too
how close did i get ?
In general....not bad, not bad at all. I quite like it actually! Thats a pretty stiff grade though. I'd want to test it out and see that my trains (full planned length) could get up (and be controlled coming down too.....not sliding down) before I went too far in the building process, but if that works out it could be a really nice layout. You might even have to double head (YEAH!!!!).
I might offer two suggestions right off though (besides the testing thing).
First, an operational one.....I'd lengthen the lead on the yard in the upper right of the first pic. It's too short to be of a lot of use. The area in the lower right of the middle pic is an interchange with an engine service area I assume (?) so it may not need the same kind of treatment. I don't know, it's late and I've had little sleep. I'll look at it more tomorrow. Long week, ya know?
My second suggestion is more of an asthetic one. On the first pic all of your main tracks run parallel to the tables edge. That makes your layout look smaller (the eye tends to automatically start figuring size when it see's this and it's easy to figure it when things are in straight lines) and it's also a little boring to look at in real life. I'm not trying to be insulting in ANY way, so please don't take it that way at all. I'm just saying that you can give the layout some "eye candy" and make the layout appear larger if you tilt the plan cockeyed a little bit so those tracks don't follow the tables edge. You can also introduce a real gentle curve somewhere in those straightaways (and add a scenic feature so the curve has a reason.....like a river or mountains edge) to further dress it up. Remember, there are very few long straightaways in the mountains!
I'll check back after I've had some sleep and can think better, OK?
Thank you for the input, I plan on testing my locomotives as that is a rather steep grade (double heading huhhhhhh).
The yard lead (top pic top right) will be lengthened, great call. The center pic is about 6" above staging and the bottom right is a small town with interchange to logging and mining areas. I had not thought of putting much of a enguine facility there, mostly just a turn table with enguine facilities on the lower (first pic) area. the track that runs behind the turn table (center pic) goes to a logging company yard (2 track, empty & loads).
I like the idea of not running parallel to the table but am having a problem seeing how to do it. I still feal that something is missing or just not right.
Again thanks for the input
Lee,
Your layout is about the same size as mine (8' x 20' room). You did not say if yours was in a room (walls on all sides) or out in the open with access from both sides. You also did not say what height off the floor you were planning to use.
If your layout will be in a room then I would suggest that you reconsider your 30" width. 30" is a stretch even in the middle and the corners of the layout would actually be closer to 48" from the accessable front. This all make construction and maintenance very hard and less enjoyable. A 24" width is much more manageable.
Also if your layout is in a room you did not show where the door is located. I would also suggest that you do not try to "duck-under" (or whatever) a 30" or 24" width. Wherever the door is make the area in front of the door as narrow as possible. I have an 8" wide double track section in front of my doorway which makes it very easy to "bend under" coming and going. My nominal elevation off the floor is 51 inches.
If you are unsure then mock-up some test situations using cardboard or whatever is available for tables and shelves of different widths and heights. Experiment with how easy or hard it will be to reach different areas of your (future) layout.
Good luck,-John
Thanks guys for the input, I can see that track planning is a real do it again project (thats ok). I am also not sure if a 6" seperation is enough, should it be more? The layout was designed as a stand alone (modular kinda) with full acess, I am 60 and I rent a house with a full (big) semi-finished basement and I want the layout moveable if necessary.
As I look at what I designed I wonder if I tried to put to much into it. Would it be better to coonsintrate on the short line and forget the major (round-e-round) railroad? I am realy interested in operation and scenery much more than seeing trains go in a loop.
I don't know how high off the floor, I don't know what is a good height, last layout I built was over 20 years ago for my kids so it was quite low. Other than that I haven't had a layout for 45 years (that long... realy.........ok).
Again I want to thank all for the help and there will be another layout posted as soon as it is designed.
I am the same age and, as I said, I am working with the same amount of space. My 8' x 20' space is actually in a room of that size so I knew my exact boundries starting out. I took about a year to design what I wanted before I ever cut a board.
Some of the considerations I went through:
As I said, it took me a year to come up with a plan I liked but so far I think I will be satisfied with the result (still under construction).
My most important suggestion, if you have not heard/done this already, is to study Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operations. The information in this book will keep you out of a lot of trouble.
L Cowan wrote: Thanks guys for the input, I can see that track planning is a real do it again project (thats ok).
Thanks guys for the input, I can see that track planning is a real do it again project (thats ok).
I went through 20 redesigns before I had the final plan.......you'll get there. Trust me though......paper is much cheaper then track, wood, and time! Now is the time to fine tune things. And it makes the building process go much smoother and faster too!
rustyrails, Well put and some good food for thought for many considering a layout like this.
Simple, yet adaqate and can be sceniced to look quite real.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
rustyrails wrote: My most important suggestion, if you have not heard/done this already, is to study Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operations. The information in this book will keep you out of a lot of trouble.
I forgot, I meant to back this suggestion up earlier. This is an excellent book that I have read cover to cover quite a few times and I still get new stuff from it. I'm sure I'll be learning from this book for many years to come.
I'd also suggest another site if I could. There is tons of good info here and it's updated regularly: http://ldsig.org/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.4
Another general planning suggestion that I forgot to mention earlier:
Assuming that you are freelancing and not copying a specific (real) location, you need a "story" to have your layout make sense.
For example I have a town on my layout. I wanted two separate towns but did I not have the space for proper visual separation. Instead I included a small river bisecting the town. East Jackson is older with wood frame buildings. Once the highway department built a highway bridge across the river in the early '30s (a WPA* effort), the town expanded and West Jackson was born. West Jackson has newer brick buildings.
Essentially I created two towns with two sets of industries and different looks in one location. The "story" creates plausibility for why things are they way they are.
There are also two RR tracks crossing the river I mentioned above. These two tracks are really passing sidings with industrial spurs off of the sidings. To take this story a bit further, each track has a bridge of a different era - one wooden (the original line) and one steel.
When I want to enforce it, the wooden bridge has a weight limit. Thus any switching off of that line has to include idler cars so that the (heavy) engine itself does not cross the bridge. This is a simple way to add operational and switching complexity in a limited amount of space. The only thing that was needed was a "story."
-John
* Actually the WPA did not come into existance until 1935 but I fudged a little bit. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration
Again, I can't say thanks enough. I have been working on a story for my railroad but have not put it to paper yet. It is time to go back to the drawing board with some new ideas and better guidance thanks to you guys, the help is great. I just wish that I had the knoledge base to pass on to others to kinda give back to the forum for all it has given to me.
L Cowan wrote:I just wish that I had the knoledge base to pass on to others to kinda give back to the forum for all it has given to me.
Keep building.....you will!
The same way you post a picture, there is a good threadon that in the forum. when I get home tonight I will get it for you
The first thing to do is save your plan as a jpeg file then follow the instructions in the below thread
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/626882/ShowPost.aspx
hope that helps