Thanks for the critique.
I have not had any problems with my track plan at all. In fact, for the first time time I became a model railroader, I hooked up one of the 16 remote switches I have on the layout and it work. I was thrilled! Before long I'm going to have all 16 hooked up and doing realistic operation!
Given the size of the layout, I really don't think the S curve is going to be that much of a problem. These are a major issue only if you're running long passenger cars, or cars longer than 50' with body mounted couplers. Hard to run these big cars on a 24 x36" layout...
If you stick to 40 and 50' long cars and 4 axle diesels operated at a reasonable speed, I don't think you'll ever have a problem on the mainline crossover. You might experience some hiccups backing into the yard through an S, but again, given your circumstances, I think different rules apply.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Maybe a construction supply yard like this one (edit:oops, that's actually a landscaping company, but it would work too) in Waterford, MI. You'd have some bunkers for piles of sand, aggregates and other materials in the back, and maybe just a small office/shack in the front. Keeping with your trucking theme, you could have construction vehicles driving in for pickups.
Would like some more input on this. The track plan is on the first page, and would like some more ideas on what industries I can model on the spur tracks in the center.
What buildings can I model?
gatrhumpy wrote: I have a question. I'd like to keep the center of the layout relatively open for my town and trucking terminal. However, I have no idea what industries to put on the two sidings...Any suggestions?I'm trying to model the 1991-1993 timeframe before St. Johnsbury went out of business and before Santa Fe merged with BN.
I have a question. I'd like to keep the center of the layout relatively open for my town and trucking terminal. However, I have no idea what industries to put on the two sidings...
Any suggestions?
I'm trying to model the 1991-1993 timeframe before St. Johnsbury went out of business and before Santa Fe merged with BN.
Nobody?
gatrhumpy wrote: Besides the engine house, what other industry could I have there? I would need an access road off the main street, parking, etc.
Or don't like that idea, make an industrial track roughly parallel to the locomotive house (and street) and have the existing structures there just use rail service out their back loading docks.
gatrhumpy wrote: I still think it will work. The radius of the inside loop was 9-3/4", while the radius of the outside loop was 11". Those are minimum radii according the N scale, and I think they will work.
I still think it will work. The radius of the inside loop was 9-3/4", while the radius of the outside loop was 11". Those are minimum radii according the N scale, and I think they will work.
You'll still have to eliminate the s-curve above the yard if you want the best chance of reliable operation. Good luck.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Thanks for the tip.
I'll play around with it in CAD once I get home.
Oops, sorry, you had the crossover going the other way. Still works with #4s, just watch the track-to-track spacing.
The advantage to the angled crossover is that it eliminates s-curves. The disadvantage is that it routes the main line through the diverging portion of the turnouts, which is very rare on real-life railroad main lines. You also have to be very sure that you maintain sufficient track-to-track spacing so that trains passing one another on the inside and ouside lines don't sideswipe in the crossover area.
I'm afraid that you will have some significant trouble building and running what you have drawn.
The original design you are trying to copy (from MR Dec 1994) was an HO 4X8 that did not have double track at the right side of your design. You are trying to add double-track in about the same relative space in N scale. That probably just won't work, and that's one of the reasons you are running into trouble with the crossovers.
I hope you won't press forward with a problem design just because you have already purchased the track. You might be able to get the original single-track-with-sidings HO 4X8 design to fit into your space in N with some modifications, but this double-track version seems unlikely to work unless you reduce the radius so much that the smaller radius begins to cause other problems.
For future reference and for others who might want to try angled crossovers, here's how it would look at the upper left of your current design.
But again, this change alone will not resolve all the issues you will have in trying to cram ten pounds of sugar into a five-pound sack. Lots of folks are led into thinking that anything they can draw in CAD will work well, and it's sadly not the case.
ByronModel RR Blog
Bear "It's all about having fun."
I think I just figured it out.
The angled switch would not work because I still need to outer mainline to stay straight, not angle up torwards the top (and out of) of the layout. In other words, if I used a LH #4 turnout and then a RH #4 turnout on top, the mainline would not be aligned with the rest of the mainline coming from the right (the outer mainline loop).
Besides, I don't plan on going very fast through these curves.
gatrhumpy wrote:Wait. I don't see how you can avoid using the #4 turnouts. What track piece is the angled crossover for Atlas in N scale?
It is a normal #4. It is just a right instead of a left.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
gatrhumpy wrote:Hmmm. INteresting. I don't think I have the space for two #6 turnouts. I think I have to stick with #4 turnouts.
That's the point. You can use #4s if you don't put them in the classic straight crossover configuration you have now -- instead use the angled crossover. Using #4s in a typical straight crossover plus leading into them with an s-curve (as you seem to have now) is likely going to be a problem.
Just because CAD lets you do something doesn't guarantee it will work, unfortunately.
The s-curves may well be problems for performance (derailments), not just appearance. It's still an s-curve above the yard for a train going through the curved side of the turnout.
A simpler design that doesn't require the s-curves may be a better choice for a first layout, if this is your first.
As others have mentioned, you seem to have relatively a lot of yard for the actual usable length of the industry spurs.
For crossovers, consider an angled crossover instead of a straight crossover. This is not typical of main lines on the protoype, but will perform better if you keep something like the current configuration.
New track plan, however, this has some weird sections of flextrack that I don't know would work.
That's true. I think I will visit the local hobby shop again and pick up another couple of remote switches. I plan on putting this layout on a table built specifically for the train. I already have glued two 3/4" thick extruded styrofoam boards together that are 2.5' X 4'. It's the beginning!
Besides the engine house, what other industry could I have there? I would need an access road off the main street, parking, etc.
Are "S" curve generally bad? I know they're not prototypical, but that's not what I'm going for here.
I could create the escape like you said, and, in fact, probably would be a good idea. I believe that's what they had in the track plan in the December 1994 issue.
1. There is only one crossover between the two main tracks. This means a train can cross from one to the other in one direction only. To get back to the original track the train will have to backup through the crossover.
2. The switches are concentraded on the front and back of the layout. These areas are where most derailments will occur. This means reaching over the layout (regardless of which side is the "wall" side) to correct the problems. This is probably not avoidable with this size of a layout but I think I would definitely power the turnouts on the "wall" side.
3. I don't think I would spend valuable layout space on an engine house. I would make this another industry. The layout is heavily yarded and sparingly industried. Or that engine house track could have another turnout that turns tightly and runs another industry spur across the road into that area South-East of the truck terminal. That way there would be an engine house and another industry.