Hello all--
I'm new to the forum (just recently subscribed to the magazine) and I thought I'd introduce myself with a description/image of the track plan I just finished (and am about to start building) and see if anyone spots any obvious flaws or room for improvement. There probably are some: I have the mainline the way I want it but my switchyard and spurs are all kind of slapped down at random. What I want to model is a long, cross-country mainline, but even I want to occasionally do more than just watch the trains run in (long) circles so I thought I'd see if those of you who specialize in switching layouts might have a suggestion or two to improve operations.
My layout is N-scale and will occupy 9x12 feet of a 13x12 spare room. I plan basically E-shaped benchwork with 3 small tables connected by bookshelves varying from 12 to 18 inches deep.
My prototype is not an actual railroad but rather a piece of geography that so far as I know never had a railroad on it but darn well should have. It's the stretch of the Rio Grande river that runs along the south border of Big Bend National Park in southwest Texas. Geological forces lifted up a huge, sharp-edged plateau that looks like something out of Conan Doyle's "Lost World." The river emerges from a sharp, Royal-Gorge-like canyon, runs for miles along the foot of the cliff with flat plains on one side and the sheer wall on the other, then turns back into another canyon running into the plateau.
The "Twin Canyons RR" layout plan has two scenes and makes the wall of the plateau into a ridge dividing them. I may place a divider with backdrop painting along the ridge, or just build the ridge itself up tall enough to serve as a divider, looking like a sheer cliff from both sides, with a line of trees to suggest the presence of the plateau behind the visible edge.
Here's a picture of my plan as it stands. For a larger (much larger) version, visit: http://www.gsoftnet.us/TCRR.jpg
The mainline is a twice-around loop. Using the crossover in the Burroughs switchyard at left, it breaks into two separate once-around loops (the operator will have to pay attention to avoid collisions at the crossing), and using the secondary line along the ridge it can be turned into a single once-around loop. As for the switchyard at Burroughs and the small spurs at Lewiston, I pretty much just plopped them down at random. The rectangles for structures are generic, not representing specific structures I've already settled on.
I'm decently happy with it, but have this daydream where someone on the forum says "Hey, if you just put an extra turnout here, you'll have five times the operational possibilities!"
But being realistic-- comments? Suggestions for improvement?
THE GOODNIGHT
Welcome to the forum. Beautiful part of the world to put a railroad. My two weeks there still leave me impressed. Seems to me there was a small short line in the east end of the park. We off roaded the roadbed one night and got caught in a dust storm. Wonderful experience.
That wall and its canyons need a railroad, to that I agree. We hiked some of those canyons and a train track would just barely fit in some of the passes. The same idea put the railroad in my version of Yellowstone canyon.
I give little advice. What I do give is this, make the railroad what you want it to be. In that setting, there will be more scenery than track and few yards. You could model the mercury mine in the central part of the park and get a great little industry.
Keep us posted, you have a GREAT concept.
to the forums!
I like your main line run. But I think your yard leaves a little to be desired.
One thing to keep in mind is that after watching the trains go round and round, you will get bored and want to do some switching and maybe operating with different trains and schedules. I know I did after building my "dream" layout.
If you don't have it, I would recommend that you get a copy of John Armstrong's book "Track Planning for Realistic Operations". Also, there was a good discussion a while back on yards and what is needed for them to work correctly. You may want to do a search for that on the forums here. I found it helpful enough that I re-designed the yard on my new layout now in progress.
I would leave the main line as is and tweak the yard, engine facilities, and possibly the industry tracks for access in both directions (closer to the industry leads).
I hate to say this, but you might have to give up the elevated city to get more yard area. I would think about it. I like the elevated city. Maybe it could be moved to the lower left corner behind the roundhouse (mostly on the lower wall but L shaped if possible). Might make it more interesting than just a linear road and line of buildings. The roundhouse could be turned more toward the lower right corner.
However, it is a very nice plan.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
gandydancer19 wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that after watching the trains go round and round, you will get bored and want to do some switching and maybe operating with different trains and schedules. I know I did after building my "dream" layout.
Exactly-- this is the kind of thing that I know I'll want but also know I don't know anything about. What I'm after is the best-functioning switchyard I can work out, combined with the long, largely switch-free mainline. I've seen published plans for bookshelf switching layouts that consist of not much more than a large switchyard; the kind of thing I'm groping for is to essentially attach such a layout to a longer mainline that would orient toward scenery. So I'd treat the town of Burroughs as both starting point and destination-- assemble a train, send it off, then once it's made it all the way around treat it as if it came from somewhere else and break it down again.
And of course, every now and again just watch the trains run round and round...
If you don't have it, I would recommend that you get a copy of John Armstrong's book "Track Planning for Realistic Operations".
Thanks-- I don't have it but I'll get it!
I hate to say this, but you might have to give up the elevated city to get more yard area. I would think about it. I like the elevated city.
I like it too, but it could easily shrink-- all that it really needs to be is the backsides of buildings, suggesting a town beyond the edge of the layout. I could have flats against the backdrop and an alley plus fence along the edge. Put a few of the flats on an angle with mirrors between them and I could get some nice appearance of depth without giving up much actual real estate.
I'll search the forums as well as the book you suggest. Thanks!
Keith,
The one glaring thing (to me) is the curves coming in and out of the tunnels in the middle peninsula. Even for N-scale, they look pretty tight. I'd also like to see a slightly larger yard. I like the overall design though.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
tstage wrote:The one glaring thing (to me) is the curves coming in and out of the tunnels in the middle peninsula. Even for N-scale, they look pretty tight.
Hm, that's odd. It might be a bit of an optical illusion, because they're not the tightest curves on the layout-- those are the ones with double tracks at the corners.
The "art version" of the plan I posted was traced over a CAD-drawn plan using RailModeller software and its library of Atlas snap-track pieces (I plan to lay flextrack on the actual layout, but used snap-track in the design to keep myself honest).
On those corners the inner track making the turn is 9.75" radius (Atlas' smallest radius) and the outer track is 11". The turns hidden under the tunnels at center are all 11", some with 19" easements. I wanted to avoid the tightest turns there, even though they didn't show, because I wanted to reduce risk of derailments in a section where I'd have to lift off a mountain to fix them.
Of course, that whole area is unprototypically like an urban highway mixmaster, but that's why it hides under a mountain...
This is probably more information than you need, but here is how I design my layouts. Maybe something in here will help you.
What I do for layout design (have done so far) is define my area and benchwork first. Next I decide on a theme. (Mainline running, with a branch line(?) or other special interests.) Then I put in a mainline. I am fond of twice around the room types divided by scenery and grades.
Since I have gotten into operations, I also have a staging area of some sort, whether it is a lay-over for entire trains, or a yard that simulates an interchange yard. One track in staging is a through track for continuous running. If I put cars on it, the layout becomes point to point for operations.
Next I try and determine how many small towns I can have, and possibility one city with a yard and loco facilities, without them crowding one another. Usually small yards and facilities unless I have the room for larger ones. I will try to fit in a way-side industry or two just for variation as long as it won't crowd things.
Then I go looking at plans for modular railroads. I look for ones that would make good towns or cities because their track plans are usually fairly compact, and most of the way they will be switched is already determined with a good track plan themselves.
Because I freelance, I don't worry about town and city names etc., but if you want to model a specific prototype, you can name the towns as the railroad you are modeling would, and build or plan you scenery to suite the area you want to model. Also, some of the industries that may be recognizable in a town you choose to name from a real one may have to be built or otherwise implied to achieve the "feeling" of the real town.
When building starts, I try and get all of the benchwork built first. Then plan where the towns will go and install the mainline to get some trains running. Then I work on one of the yards so I can store stuff when not running. Then I plug along on the other track work and scenery design and continue from there.
Hope this helps.
Not bad. Let me offer my two cents worth. First, long runs of straight track running along the sides of the benchwork look as if the track was routed along the edge of the benchwork. I find it more effective to put some gentle curves into the track or run it at some angle to the edge. You want to avoid emphasising the straight edge of the benchwork by decorating said edge with shiny concentric rails.
Was it me, I would run the main line out and around the peninsula to get the longest possible mainline run. It looks as ff your mainline shortcuts across the base of the peninsula.
Your main line curves look pretty sharp. I do HO, where 36" radius is a broad curve. In N that would be in the order of 18" radius. You will begin to desire big steam and 80 foot passenger cars and it would be shame not to be able to accomodate them.
Do your industrial spurs have enough space to build the necessary model industry to give a plausible reason for spotting cars on the spurs? Do you have a location for a passenger station somewhere on the main line?
"Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong is the track planners bible. I cannot recommend it too highly.
Your yard plan might want a review. Do you have a long yard lead track so the switch crew can handle a long cut of cars without blocking the main line?
Good luck
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
Hi, and welcome to the forum! That's a nice theme and has a lot of potential for enjoyment.
The one thing I think is often overlooked is "the rest of the world". A railroad generally gets "stuff" from afar, and passes through its part of the world, sprinkling some of it on the way, and then either takes what is left over to other areas, or passes it on to someone else to take it. In addition, it will pick up local product to do the same with.
Since one cannot hope to model the "rest of the world", you can fake it by creating hidden or visible interchange with other 'roads, using out-of-sight staging to give the impression of trains that go onward beyond the layout.
Have you given any thought to adding some staging under the table, or hiding a couple of tracks inside a hill or structure? That way you'll be able to run that twice a week passenger train and it'll be gone until its next run, not taking up active yard space while sitting dead.
It became almost immediately obvious that I needed something like that on my layout, even before I could run a full circuit. I wound up dismantling a good chunk of trackwork and putting in several runs of staging and a track for running around it, all to be hidden beneath a mountain. It has access through the side of the layout for switch service (of course, things don't happen in there! :+) but one never knows).
If you can arrange for some staging, I doubt you'll regret it.
Have fun, George.
Having parallel double track lines on double track bridges into double track tunnels is a bit much.
The city that is a perfect rectangle will also look bad. It needs to be at an angle.
Extend the city to the edge of the benchwork and put the 4 mains in a trench thru the city. Not likely in west Texas? Au contrare. The SP/UP operates thru the "trainway" a triple track line in a trench thru downtown El Paso. Beyond the city the SP mains split and went on separate alignments over hte Rio Grande at different elevations on different bridges. I suggest you look at the west side of El Paso for inspiration. In addition the yards were on one side of the trainway and the station was on the other. You could put a yard in the lower left return loop.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dstarr wrote:First, long runs of straight track running along the sides of the benchwork look as if the track was routed along the edge of the benchwork. I find it more effective to put some gentle curves into the track or run it at some angle to the edge.
Yes, when I go from design to construction I plan to introduce gentle S-curves to those long straightaways, using flextrack (I used sectional track in my CAD program to keep myself honest about curve radii).
It's a twice-around loop that in one circuit visits the peninsula once, the town on the right once, and the main town on the left twice. Setting turnouts, it can be broken into two once-around loops (one to the peninsula and the other to the right, both starting at the left) or converted into a loop that visits all 3 scenes on one circuit.
Your main line curves look pretty sharp. I do HO, where 36" radius is a broad curve. In N that would be in the order of 18" radius.
I guess I've become cavalier about tight curves during the years of building table-top layouts while living in apartments (tight curves are the only way to do anything interesting in a really tight space). It's an issue definitely worth paying more attention to now that I have some space.
Until this thread I'd never even heard terms like "lead track" so it's not surprising I lack a proper yard design! Before now, operations haven't been much of an issue for me, my small layouts have essentially been dioramas with trains as an animated component.
That's still my emphasis even now, but I want to add some operational interest this time around since I don't plan to just tear this layout up and re-use the "table" for another one when I get bored! However operations aren't my first priority.
Over the last 24 hours I've done some intensive study via web search about yard design and I've already seen plenty of ways to improve it. To some extent I'm a heretic in the hobby, because I don't care so much about realistic operations as I do complicated operations that would keep me busy-- whether it's four trains heading for a crossover all at once and me with only my one DCC throttle to save the day, or a yard that's actually a switching puzzle like the infamous "Timesaver." (Don't panic, I have figured out that realistic operations are the best way to achieve the goal of challenge combined with variety. I'm just talking about where I'm coming from.)
THE GOODNIGHT.
BigG wrote:Have you given any thought to adding some staging under the table, or hiding a couple of tracks inside a hill or structure?
Yes, indeed. I've had several attempts at hidden staging in my previous drafts, although none have been quite satisfactory to me and the current draft lacks any. Extending the area of the elevated town would yield room for one or two staging tracks beneath it, though at a cost of taking away room for the switchyard. Another possibility is a hidden helix under the ridge on the peninsula, leading down to a lower level staging yard.
None of my attempts have quite worked out yet, but it's something I continue to look at.
Okay, almost everyone who replied to this thread noted the inadequacy of my switchyard. After some hasty research (I'm a scenery guy, it's never been something I did anything with before), here's a revised version. Comments?
Comparing it to my original posted drawing, it replaces the left side (the new image is 90 degrees rotated, obviously).
It's still a pretty small switchyard (again-- scenery guy) but I took some track and laid it out on a tabletop last night and pushed some boxcars around using my finger in lieu of a switching locomotive, and I seem to be able to do some things with it.
Any chance of removing the S-bend at the right end of the yd throat as it leaves the main? If the turnout on the main is closer to the curve, and installed as the exit of the curve (the main takes the diversion; the yd goes straight) you won't have as much trouble with random-length cars trying to pull ea other off the rails.
I think I'd delete the town between the yd and the operator. You'll always be reaching over bldgs to get at cars, and the damage potential is high. The town would look good as part of a hillside behind the yard. Hopefully the transition to undergnd is not as sharp as it appears.
Have fun, George
BigG wrote:Any chance of removing the S-bend at the right end of the yd throat as it leaves the main? If the turnout on the main is closer to the curve, and installed as the exit of the curve (the main takes the diversion; the yd goes straight) you won't have as much trouble with random-length cars trying to pull ea other off the rails.
Oh, excellent idea! It gives me a little extra length in my yard tracks as well. I had some mental block that I had to finish the curve before inserting a turnout, but your way is better. My CAD program says it won't quite fit with sectional track, but since I'm planning flextrack on the actual layout, that's a non-issue.
A curved turnout may be helpful here, depending on your curve radius. Various mfgrs make them in fairly standard curvatures, many being in the 24"(outer)x18-20"(inner) radius. I use some Peco 60"x30" (approx) to advantage. The big radius goes well in the easement at the end of a curve. Curved turnouts can save a lot of real estate if you plan it right, although the prices are higher.
Depending on what you will run, the turnout on the main can be a larger radius than the actual yard ones, eg: Peco medium radius on the main vs small radius in the yard. Your CAD pgm should be able to plot some of this out, unless it is locked into a particular mfgr or style of track. I did all my planning with a giant sheet of paper with real turnouts and flextrack to get the fit right. The actual curves were drawn with a trammel, and the easements with the bent-stick method. Guess I'm too hands-on to sit and go thru the learning curve for CAD. :+)
Hi,
I see a lot of people designing layout using twice-arounds, but without a functional reason for them to do so, what is the difference in the train running running the front or 2" further back. If you are thinking of the boring factor, you haven't gained much. What mostly ends up happening is the person spends more money on track and has less functionality in terms of scenery, structures and operations.
Spend your time and money on making that once through look really good.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
If this is your first layout, it's fine for watching trains going roundy roundy and it will give you experience for track work scenery and very very little operation opportunity.If your satisfied go for it and keep in mind a year from now you will probably be looking to do something different and there's nothing wrong with that, I'm on my 4th in 6th years and thinking about the 5th, always something new to learn and add or remove from the likes and dislikes list.
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174
TheGoodnightOkay, almost everyone who replied to this thread noted the inadequacy of my switchyard. After some hasty research (I'm a scenery guy, it's never been something I did anything with before), here's a revised version. Comments?Comparing it to my original posted drawing, it replaces the left side (the new image is 90 degrees rotated, obviously).It's still a pretty small switchyard (again-- scenery guy) but I took some track and laid it out on a tabletop last night and pushed some boxcars around using my finger in lieu of a switching locomotive, and I seem to be able to do some things with it.THE GOODNIGHT
Let me offer a couple of more suggestions. First the "possible additional part of town TBD" is between the fascia and the yard. You may find it gets in the way of reaching into the yard tracks to rerail some car or other. Yard work may cause structures and signage in the town to get damaged. You might consider bringing the yard to the foreground and putting the town addition behind the yard so you don't have to reach over it. The other thing, your yard tracks look a little short. They could be longer if you made the yard single ended, just a ladder of turnouts at one end. Then the yard tracks could be made longer to hold more cars. You will find that cars expand to fill track available, and it is nice to have track to show them all off.
gerhard_kAlmost all routes that go onto and off the peninsula wind up on the far side of where you're coming from, so you would have to race around the peninsula to catch up with your train. For a better walk-along path, try to bring (as much as possible) the turns onto the peninsula onto the side that you're already on.
This is a good point that I'll think about. My idea in the plan as posted was that whichever side you stood on, the trains would appear to leave and go somewhere else, while other trains would arrive-- so each side would be sort of (though only sort of) a "staging yard" for the other side. My number 1 "druther" in layout planning is to have the trains seem to go somewhere-- I don't mean a commercial destination, a place to deliver cargo, but the appearance that the trains have a long distance to cover.
Before now I haven't had an entire room to devote to a layout, I've always had to be content with small-- and movable-- island layouts that could be put aside when the space is needed for something else, so right off the bat this time I indulged all my frustrated desires for a long mainline...
wickmanIf this is your first layout, it's fine for watching trains going roundy roundy and it will give you experience for track work scenery and very very little operation opportunity.
No, it's my fourth, but the first to consider operations as opposed to just watching the trains. In fact, my previous layout was a Z-scale without a single turnout, just a mainline whose entire design concept was to have trains emerge from the tunnels exactly where you don't expect them. Just to make the serious modelers cringe even further, I didn't even plan it-- I just sat down with a box of Z-scale track and started putting it together and taking it apart until I had something spaghetti-like enough to satisfy me, then I built a mountain to hide most of it.
The Z-scale currently serves as the centerpiece on my dining table, although in the past I've kept it in my office-- it's excellent for staring at when I'm supposed to be writing.