Rate my plan: t-track modules n scale

[ComradeTom]

Hello all, a move to a small apartment has dashed my hopes of my HO Pere Marquette empire... for now. (the fiance already knows the new house has to have the basement for my layout)

But for the time being, im looking to do some apartment sized railroading, I picked up the Model Railroading special issue at my local bookstore and stumbled upon T-trak, excitedly showing it to my fiance she approved “as long as it could be taken down so we could have the space back when we need it” and I began planning. So, enough of the why and now to the actual layout.

I have based the layout on C&O operations in Michigan in the mid 60’s, I chose this era because I wanted to include the GP30’s the C&O got on trade in’s from their BL-2 fleet, and the other advantages of running 4 axle road units on a small layout.

The layout is made of 2 T-trak singles, 2 T-trak doubles, and 4 T-trak corners, the modules are shown on the plan as black boxes. All buildings are approximate in size and location, used more for reference than anything. I wanted to make sure the layout had a loop incorporated, as my soon to be nephew has taken an interest in trains already and may inherit this layout when he is old enough and I have the space to go back to HO. However I also wanted to make sure the layout was capable of some form of operations for 1-2 operators. As you can see in the plan, the layout is composed of 2 separate towns, one with a gravel operation, and another with a farming/ rural theme along with an interchange track. The two towns are split by a tree covered hill for a view block. In the bottom corner you will also notice a crossing meant to represent the crossing of another railroad that the line interchanges with. This also allows the railroad to expand into small staging yards (not shown).

My vision of an operating session is as follows a freight train is staged on the line heading for the town with the gravel pit, while the track facing the rural community has a small (locomotive and one coach) passenger train on it. Operating session would open with the passenger train getting clearance over the diamond and proceeding to the rural station. Once the diamond is clear, the freight may proceed to the gravel town and proceed to switch empties for loads at the gravel plant. While the freight crew is doing its switch job, the passenger train (running on a timetable) departs rural station and proceeds to gravel station where the mainline freight has to clear the main for the passenger train. The passenger train departs gravel station and heads around on the continuous run track to rural station again (listed as a different stop on the timetable) and performs a runaround and prepares for the return trip freight crew when finished with gravel job proceeds to rural town. Where they will work the local industries along with the interchange track, again making sure to clear the main for the passenger as it comes back through stopping at gravel and rural stations before proceeding over the diamond and back into staging. When the freight is done, the will proceed over the diamond as well following the passenger into the staging yard.

I would really appreciate any input on my plan, any unforeseen flaws or other issues that I may be missing or minor improvements I could make.

[Tinplate Toddler]

The run-around track of the upper station is mighty short!

[bearman]

I will defer to more experienced track planners on this one.  But, the main line appears to be the outer loop on the left and the inner loop on the right.  Therefore, any train will have to negotiate two S curves. 

And, "...departs rural station and proceeds to gravel station where the mainline freight has to clear the main for the passenger train." If you have two operators, or only one for that matter, the switching freight will probably have to be continuously interrupted unless once around is part of the operation.

[hon30critter]

In addition to the above two comments (with which I agree by the way), I would suggest flipping the turnouts in the lower right section where the right loop meets the double track. Your current plan does not allow a train running clockwise to choose either one or the other of the tracks in the lower double track section. It is forced to take the upper route. If you reverse the turnouts so that the train can access either the upper or lower track from the right then you will have a functional passing track.

You could still get to the lower right interchange by adding a right hand turnout to the lower right end of the passing track. The curved route out of the turnout would lead to the mainline and the straight route would lead to the interchange. Having the curved route out of the turnout leading to your mainline is not exactly prototypical, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do!

Dave

[bearman]

Dave, I am not sure that I follow your suggestion in the second paragraph. 

If that 90 degree crossing is a requirement then eliminating that length of track from the turnout to the crossing and extending that interchange track to the crossing located a little farther south may be in order.  However, the OP indicated that part of the operating plan was to work industries along the interchange and I don't really see where there is enough room to locate any industries.

[ComradeTom]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions, I have made two alterations to my plan, im hoping you all can help me refine them a bit more or give me some more suggestions.

This is my first alteration, I elminated 1 of the S curves, lengthened the back passing siding, and removed one of the gravel sidings, to reduce the amount of cars needing to be swapped at the gravel plant. The lumber yard would be relocated to the bottom left corner.
This is my second alteration, it eleminates all s curves from the circle route, the gravel pit has been relocated to the outside of the loop in the top right, replacing the building with just a siding and a front end loader. An extra siding has been added to the back town that can be a team track.

The lumber yard is relocated to the bottom left as in the first alteration.however everything else stays in the same location, the small siding could be a small industry or a team track as well, I havent decided, thank you for the responces, let me know what you think about the alterations ive made.

[ComradeTom]

Sorry, I just noticed the glareing double s curve to acess the interchange track in the second edit, here it is fixed

[bearman]

There is no real reason that I can see to eliminate one of the gravel spurs.  That short spur on the south side could also be lengthened and made a little more utilitarian.  And I would also lengthen the interchange at the bottom as much as possible befor curving it off the layout to provide more track for rolling stock.

[gregc]

ComradeTom

im looking to do some apartment sized railroading, I picked up the Model Railroading special issue at my local bookstore and stumbled upon T-trak, excitedly showing it to my fiance she approved

“as long as it could be taken down so we could have the space back when we need it” and I began planning.

this is from a book on model railroad in Britain where homes and apartments are small

 

[Tinplate Toddler]

Greg,

I don´t want to rain on your parade, but the OP is seeking advice on his track plan and is not looking into different ways of building a layout in a tight space. He seemingy has decided on the t-track modular system, which is a good choice, as he can easily extend or alter the layout and the track plan, should he will have more space available in the future.

[bearman]

One other thing you can do with the siding on the south is to move the turnouts up into the curve so that the diverging end is straight across.  Then you can curve into the mainline from the straight end of the turnout.

I would also flip the two turnouts on the right side of the north siding so that you can run a train straight into it from the mainline when it is traveling counter clockwise. 

[ROBERT PETRICK]

Hey Comrade-

Since you're using Kato Unitrack for this 'temporary' T-track layout, why not take full advantage of the temporary features offered by the Unitrack system? Namely, lay out the track plan and run trains for a while to see what's what. Problems and nuisances and inconveniences will show up soon enough. All of the plans you've posted look doable, and since most of the pieces show up in most of the sketches, you won't need to purchase a lot of pieces that would go unused if you change the layout. I have several shoe boxes full of the stuff that I occasionally noodle around with even though I've built what Granny might call a permanent layout.

Plus, with Unitrack many of the ironclad rules regarding layout design espoused on this forum do not always apply; such as tight radiuses or short reverse curve esses. I've run trains full-throttle through crossovers made with two #4 turnouts installed toe-to-toe with no ill effects. Well, not with no ill effects; but not with many. Unitrack is pretty forgiving about that kind of stuff. Pretty forgiving, not entirely forgiving.

Good luck.

Robert

[csgmtu]

Hello

I am very interest in your trackpad and it’s evolution. Can you provide any updates? I may steal it for a project with my grandkids. 

Thank you

chris g

[7j43k]

csgmtu

I am very interest in your trackpad and it’s evolution. 

 

I, on the other hand, am not interested in your trackpad.  Or its grandparents.

 

Ed

[PED]

Tom,

No comments on your layout design but I do have a comment on operational concept to get added operational opertunities to your layout. Do not constrain your operations to the physical layout you create. I have an N scale layout and I have many off-layout locations as part of my operations.

They fall into two primary situations

1) When I need more space at an industrial spur than I can accomodate on my layout, I create more spur space as virtual track (storage tray) nearby. When cars are sent to the spur, anything that will not fit on the physical spur is moved (by hand) to the virtual track. When those cars need to be picked up, they move back to the layout by hand.

2) I needed more industrial locations than I could fit on my layout so I created virtual locations (again in nearby tray) that I could include in my operations. Example...I have a concrete batch plant on my layout which needs to receive cement, sand, rock, etc. I have a rock source on my layout but no cement or sand so those sources are virtual industries. When they are included in an operating session, I have a spot on my layout when those cars are added/removed as needed by hand.

A lot of people do not like the use of hands to accomplish operations but I found that it adds greatly to the operational flexability I have. Also lets me run more cars than can physically fit on my layout plus a greater variety of cars.

Another operational approach I use are the extra loops a train makes. In a small layout, it looks awkward to pick up a car at one location and then deliver it to a different location a few inches away. When that happens, your train can make multiple full loops around the layout to create distance between stops. This is another feature that some do not like but it works for me.