This is a track plan I came up with and I am thinking about using it when I get the room available. It is N scale modern era and yes the whole thing is designed to use Kato Unitrack (just in case you are wondering why it has sections). I got my fill of using flextrack and Atlas turnouts on my 4x6 I currently have, but that is another story for another day. Also I know it does not have a double main line, but with every design I worked on with double main lines it looked like a table of spaghetti so this is what I settled on so I could include a bit more scenery.
To see full size click here:
http://critrains.googlepages.com/CRI2.jpg
I don't see anything overtly wrong with your trackwork design. You seem to have planned for buildings and streets.
You don't talk a lot about your vision or the railroad's purpose in your opening paragraph. But you mentioned that you don't want a double main because it makes it look like a spaghetti bowl.
Now I don't know how a double main makes a spaghetti bowl, but when I can avoid it, I try not to have track run through the same scene twice. And in fact, your track does not need to. You have two destinations and you have two ways of getting there. And in doing so, you are forced to create scenes with the track on the edges.
Now if scenery is what is important, why not put the track right down the middle of your table or where ever it looks best--down the bank of a river or through farm country. You can do it with a single track reverse loop to reverse loop. Or if you want, you can keep a single big loop and run a double mainline--just both directions are next to each other.
At any rate, you then able to create a believable scene.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Okay let me put it this way, although it it not a 100% fair comparison. Would you rather railfan one track through a scene...
or with a dual main...
or two?
Those are excellent examples Spacemouse. I must admit I am not a big fan of the last picture and the second pictures looks really nice. Given this information I have made a couple of changes to the design. It does include dual main lines for most of the layout, it goes down to a single at the yard. The other change is to use a tunnel to hide the trains going behind the city so you do not see it wrap around. I don't mind the wrap around so much at the yard since it is supposed to be a busy place with trains coming and going. I really appreciate the pictures as sometimes I get lost in the world of track design software and really forget what the layout is going to actually look like.
The potential for a second track to increase operations, and for run-around, is what struck me.
Take a peek at Dave Vollmer's, Pennsy Middle Division, which is a 2-track N Scale maiinline on a hollow core door, where a 2-track mainline has not hindered operations...
http://thevollmerfamily.com/Pennsy/
You have considerably more room to work with, and a second track does not necessarily need to run exactly parallel to the existing mainline at all times, but can lend the appearance of a 2-track mainline. Turnouts, elevation bridging, and strategically placed turnouts might enhance operations.
What if?
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
The difference is that Dave's layout is meant to be seen from two sides. It is a great layout.
But this is what I was talking about. There is no reason to go through your scenes twice. You are not adding rail-fanning or operations, just clutter. So why not go through once in one of these two ways,
gcri wrote:Those are excellent examples Spacemouse. I must admit I am not a big fan of the last picture and the second pictures looks really nice. Given this information I have made a couple of changes to the design. It does include dual main lines for most of the layout, it goes down to a single at the yard. The other change is to use a tunnel to hide the trains going behind the city so you do not see it wrap around. I don't mind the wrap around so much at the yard since it is supposed to be a busy place with trains coming and going. I really appreciate the pictures as sometimes I get lost in the world of track design software and really forget what the layout is going to actually look like.
gcri,
If it were me I'd do a single trackage bridge over the 'swamp' area. From your picture it looks like there are two separate bridges spanning the 'swamp'. That would be quite an expensive construction for a branchline. You could probably get by with a single bridge for both tracks but even then that would be a costly proposition. I could see it feasible if you were modeling a mainline RR but even then it's going to be big $$ to spend. I would drop to a single track to span the 'swamp'
Even if you decide to keep it as is you're going to end up building two bridges. If you like bridge building then go for it but you may finish one and decide that one was enough....
Overall, though, I do like your plan. If you can, try to put some sort of 'run-around' track by the "MISC INDUSTRY" That way you're not limited to which direction you're going when "picking up/dropping off" cars.
I know you said this is going to be a modern era layout but do you have a back story for your railroad? Is it a branchline, free lanced, "proto-lanced" or based on an actual road? Any particular region of the country? I see you have a tunnel in the upper right corner. Is this a mountain? If so those "DOWNTOWN" buildings are abutted righ up to it. I know tunnels and mountains are cool but if they don't fit into your theme then placing one there might seem a bit contrived. Perhaps you could have the trains disappear into a city setting then re-emerge later (ala George Selios) thus keeping your tunnel. Also, how will you access the cars in the tunnel if there's a derailment (assuming that side of the layout is up against a wall).
just my observations.....
-G-
Spacemouse,
The reason I do not want to do a reverse loop is because with a layout that size I would occasionally want to run a really long train with a several engines. I would not do this all the time, but with all that room I could not resist doing it from time to time.
Lateral-G,
If I did the double track over the swamp I would get the Kato double truss bridges, they are not in my list of parts to pick from on XTrkCad. The layout would be freelance, but based on the Southeastern U.S. (probably somewhere close to Louisiana with the swamp and oil refinery). The tunnel would be incorporated into the city as I would give it a concrete retaining wall and I would put a four lane road on top to give it the look of an elevated interstate highway. I did not have time to add those specific details into the updated plan.
I had actually created the retaining wall template for another project I decided not to do on my existing layout.
gcri wrote: Spacemouse,The reason I do not want to do a reverse loop is because with a layout that size I would occasionally want to run a really long train with a several engines. I would not do this all the time, but with all that room I could not resist doing it from time to time.
Only the first is a reverse loop. The second is a straight loop that looks like a dual main except in the cities.
Chip, might be thoughtful to credit the layout builders of the photos you share.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama wrote: Chip, might be thoughtful to credit the layout builders of the photos you share.
Sorry
1)Joe Fugate
2) Charlie Comstock
3) I don't know
Just to add a minority opinion:
It’s not going to fit a modern railroad, but…
I like the single track main, as I am swayed to design my “ultimate layout” to operate using a train order system.
I enjoy the “puzzle” of yard operations, local freights, and working against a clock. With a single track main, taking longer to prepare a train than the allotted time means something—there are repercussions and complications that result.
I like that layout.
Crews
Nice pics, The Trees look like their ready for the Lumber Mill too. Me I'm designing a 10'x12.5' two layer N scale layout on My PC using XTrkCad 4.02. Which is in this thread Here.
How about this crazy idea... Use Chip's suggestion of the long folded dogbone on one route, then create a second single track route as a branch line.
This allows you a lot more flexibility. You can set up your long train to run on the dog bone main, and while that's off and running, you can grab a local and run out the branch line and switch cars. I added a couple of potential industry locations, and changed the oil depot spur so it comes off the branch line.
Operationally, you can roll a train in off the main, drop off a cut of cars at the yard, and pick up any set outs that are there, then run on down the line. Next, put together your local to switch the industries along the branch lines.
To make things interesting, you have to use the run arounds at each end of the branch in such a way as to leave the main clear for your through train. This is a very basic operations set up, but I think you'll enjoy the layout a lot more with these elements added. You'll also note that you can use the branch line as an alternate route and still have continuous running.
Hope this helps. I would also try to persuade you to use Atlas c55 track instead of Unitrak. Between the plastic ballast and the rigid geometry, I think it looks way too cheesey. But there are those who swear by it... I guess I'm more into the aesthetics of the thing...
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Thank you for the additional input. I will admit that it is quite a challenge using unitrack since you can't just bend the track into any shape you want, but I bought some to experiment with and I really like the ease of use/installation and the turnouts perform very well. I will paint and ballast it to cover up the plastic look. I have some rough drafts I have worked on based upon the pevious feedback, but I have not had the time to sit down and put them in Xtrkcad.