Critique My layout

[Anonymous]

Hey there I'm new at this and I'm trying to make a interesting layout to do....


The scale is N scale and I used the TS 5.0 software to do it....in the lower right corner there will be a river of somesort crossing at an angle before going under both sets of bridges....where the tracks split before the bridges the track will enter a tunnel and go under the existing track....anyone tell me if this will work??

http://rune24.freewebspace.com/

you can see the track there and you can downlaod the actual rts file if you would like too.

thanks for any help

Dave

[dehusman]

Wether its interesting or not, depends on what your interests are.

If you interests are running one train in circles, then this will interest you.

For my tastes I wouldn't find it all that interesting. Without blocking a "mainline" you can't have more than one train on the layout at a time. the two spur tracks are only long enough to handle maybe 1 or 2 cars each.

If it were my layout i would move the track along the top edge down about 4 in to put a double ended siding along the top edge. Then I would lose the short route across teh middle and put at least on stub ended track for an industry (or several) towrd the lower left corner and another trck toward the lower right corner. I would put a spur track from the lower left maine toward the right (right above the "My train design so far" title).

Actually if you started the siding on the left hand end, with the siding switch just below the junction switch on your plan and ran it up along the top side joining back in just to the right of the junction switch on the top side, you would be able to run two trains continously and have the ability to make a meet and some switching.

Dave H.

[SpaceMouse]

First of all, I applaude your creativity. Second, even thought our layouts are different they are similar. Both of us put a lot of track in for contiuous running with little thought to operations. I'm starting over.Get a copy of John Anderson's Track Planning for Realistic Operations and read it. Then look again at your layout. I think you'll find ways to increase the amount of things you can do with you layout. There are only so many ways you can run your train around the layout. If you set yourself up to service industries, etc., you can increase the potential for interesting running.

[bikerraypa]

welcome to the coolest hobby on earth. The only critique I would have for that plan is that the turns on the outer loop seem a bit sharp. If you are using longer rolling stock or locos with 6-wheel trucks, you might consider a bit of an easement into each turn. Plus it'll look way cooler.

I've been doing MRR for a good while, but I'm new to N scale myself. Fun, ain't it?[8D]

Ray out

[Anonymous]

thanks for the feed back so far guys...

I see where my spurs are too short so I'm redesigning that part.

as for the outer turns I'm looking at ways to ease into them now, and its a valid point since I really have no idea how to ease into turns or how to decide hieght etc.

also...I can see how this wouldn't really be considered a working railroad so I'm looking at adding an area in for some industry...

I'm looking at making a rockies kinda feel...oh and I'm looking at running steamers

ok I also have a totally newbie question what is a transition curve that I can make with that program?? I don't understand is it specail track?

[tstage]

Dave,

Just one quick suggestion right off hand. You've got an "S" curve right after, what appears to be, a wye turnout (middle lower right quadrant). An "S" curve is where you have a curved section of track, going in one direction, attached to another curved section of track, going in the opposite direction. Basically, you want to avoid them, if you can. Otherwise, you may have a problem with derailments in that spot. A piece of straight track - as long as your longest locomotive or passenger/freight car - should eliminate that.

Tom

[selector]

Dave, a transition is the 'easing' into a change of direction. So, if you were using sectional (snap-together) track, the curve starts at a given radius, fixed, immediately at the join of the last straight and first curved pieces. This is unnatural, and not done in the real world, particularly on high-speed main lines where standing pax could get thown around by the sudden turn. The curve is maybe a 30" radius for the first 6" (HO scale), then changes to 26", then 22", until your curve is going where you need it to go. Of course, you'll build a transition on the other side, too, 'cuz trains coming the other way will need it, and the train you're on will behave better if it eases OUT of the curve. Flex-track is much easier to bend into transitioning-type curves because you set the radius at a given point, not the factory.

I spotted that S-curve over your tunnel (if I read it right?), as well. Strong hint- lose it. As Tom has earnestly warned you, nothing good comes out of an S-curve, either in the real world of rail, or on your layout. (Crandell knows 'cuz Crandell gots one.) If you are determined to get one in because you really like the cuteness, or because it is the lynchpin curve of your layout, please do not glue or ballast for about 30 cm on either side of it so that you can rip it out when you've learned your lesson.

That last paragraph might be a bit over the top, but every word has painful experience behind it.

Good to see you asking ? here!

[Anonymous]

Thanks guys,

Yeah versions 2 is in the works now and I already removed the tunnel, I had a feeling it wasn't going to work that well plus that track took up some space that I think I want to use for something else.

OK I have another question....in the books I bought...their tracks show that their spurs basically go side by side...but with the pieces available with rts 5.0? I try with all the curve peices and it basically over laps or goes off at an angle. in the books I have they say that every switch comes with a 19" 15 degree section will that straighten them out?

also, anyone know a good website where I can get an average canadian price list for atlas parts?

Also did anyone load up t he actual file with RTS, I'm just wondering if my hieghts were done correctly.

Thanks again for all the help I figure if I get it here then I won't have to do as much correcting later[:)]

Dave

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rune_74


ok I also have a totally newbie question what is a transition curve that I can make with that program?? I don't understand is it specail track?

If you are running steam in the rockies, two obvious choices are mining and lumber as your industries. The program you are running is limited and specific to get you to buy atlas track. I started with that program and have since switched. XtraCAD is also free and is much more powerful and versatle. It has an automatic easement feature.

Easements are transition curves leading into truns so your engines don't jerk when they go from straight to turn. I'm pretty sure you need to be using flex track to make them--but you should be anyway with the layout you designed.

[SpaceMouse]

Another thing, and I am guilty of this, don't be in a hurry to build you layout. You are doing the right thing in posting your layout before you build and getting criticism. Like I said, I am also new to this and if I would have listened I would not have made as many mistakes as I have. Part of this is that I didn't understand what they were saying. I said before that I am going to scrap my layout and start again, but I am going to finish it because I want to make my mistakes from start to finish, so I don't make as many on the next layout.

[Anonymous]

OK guys version 2 is up and running....yeah I can see why atlas would want you to use it heh, however I've invested some time into making it and if I can finish it like this then I will heh. Um yeah this track is a bit more complicated then the first and allows two trains to run at the same time with relays set etc. Tell me what you guys think...Iike this one but am a bit concerned with some of the curves if they might be a bit sharp, but with my understanding if I'm running steam then it shouldn't be too bad.

Thanks for all the great feed back, oh and btw I have a digital cam so I will take pictures alll along and keep you all updated as the building goes up
http://rune24.freewebspace.com/

Dave

[SpaceMouse]

A lot better in terms of functionality.

First of all, Atlas makes fles track and you can save a lot of $$$ and headaches by using one piece of flex in the place of 4 or 5 of the pieces. Each joint is a potential derail or electrical problem. It really is easier.

Now for specifics. The turn in the very center of the layout is very tight. The problem is further complicated by the fact that it also is an S turn.

You have also created a hidden S turn with your double cross over. I have several of these on my track and if there is going to be a problem with a new engine, this is where it is going to be. To make it worse, if you were to go from your outside loop into your yard at the top of the drawing to you main yard, you would have two back-to-back S turns. I was able to make mine work, but I had days of work filing and testing and filing and grinding.

Next, you are making another mistake I made. You are thinking in terms of space and track. What happens is that you get stuck in a position of trying to make everything else fit your track--you industries, landscape, structures, etc. This is backwards. Again, I did this too and now none of the models, buildings, even the mountains work. So it ends up looking like an afterthought.

On my next layout, I'm starting with the function and working the other direction. If I have a mine how do I get the ore to the railway. Where do the miners live?

If I have a town, where do the roads go--how do people get around. In one section of my current layout, I have a great little area that is serviced by the railroad, but I forgot to include space for streets.

Look all the way ahead to the final product, then look back again at space and track.

[ereimer]

version 2 is much more interesting !

one thing to think about is where can 2 trains meet or pass ?
at the upper-middle-right you have 2 crossovers (2 sets of 2 switches) that looks to me like the only place for a meet . if you move the left pair further left you'll have room for longer trains to pass , and longer trains is one of the fun things about N

it looks like you're planning for a 3' x 6' layout . any way you could make that 3' x 8' ?
the extra space would give you room for at least one more industry , add to your mainline run , and perhaps allow a second passing track on the 'south' end of the layout.

looking good so far [:)]

[tstage]

Dave,

That sharp curve (right smack in the middle) you can probably flatten out a bit so that it is less pronounced. That way the locomotive doesn't have to make such a drastic change of direction. A gradual easement into and out of is a good suggestion made by others.

Tom

[Anonymous]

It looks like you'll have impossibly steep grades between the bridges at the bottom of your drawing. It appears you're allowing only about three feet of track, plus a turnout branching to the upper bridge and two lower bridges. I hope I'm reading the drawing incorrectly. In N scale, you should allow about eight feet of track for a 2% grade, but 4 feet in a pinch will give you about a 4% grade. You could make the single bridge a crossing track and skip the grade. Otherwise, this otherwise really neat plan appears to be heading for derailments.

[Anonymous]

Some good points and I am thinking now about extending my table to 8 x 3...

ok as to the rise in grade I was going to start the grade rising at the corner in upper left hand side of the track which is just about 6 feet in track....the elevation levels on the actual design may be off since I was doing alot of modifications and may have missed that sorry

2 more feet (actually 6 feet of space if you think in both directions....) could allow me alot more room to add a few more industries.

Dave

[SpaceMouse]

When geoeisele mentioned it I went back and looked. Indeed you have an MC Escher-like puzzle in your layout. You go from 0 to bridge in 1 foot or so, even though the grade is better out the other direction

[turbine682]

Hi Dave,

Yes, watch those grades. Additionally, someone recommended Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operations"

My current N layout plan is approximately 10+ x 5+ with room for expansion. I am using all 19" R (because I bought a ton in 1991) and # 6 switches (SAB). I have a 19" R-loop that eats approximately 5' of real estate. There aren't any grades due to the location of critical crossovers between loops (It takes about 82" run for a 2% grade to make nominal separation of 1 5/8" - this is up only!). I will have to deal with crossing over the mainline to get to one industrial area (which is fine with me because of ML length).

Nevertheless, this layout offers a decent continuous ML run and plenty of industrial switching. I will refer to Armstrong's discussion about interchanges as this may be a possibility.

This is really a simple layout that will allow running of any motive power. I believe I can turn trains in excess of 20 (mebbe 50 foot) cars on the loop. Both east and west bound trains have access to the loop. However, once I turn an east bound train (towards the west) the only way I can reverse it again is by backing. (That is, until I add the expansion previously mentioned)

Bottom line, it's your railroad - but I've seen many good comments and key info on this post. Watch the sharp curves, grades, and "spaghetti track = spaghetti wire if you're blocking"

Every day I learn something new and this forum is a great help

Have fun, and one of these day's (if I ever finish it) I'll post my plan for critque

--Ed