My turn - HO layout plan review

[odave]

 

 To me ... most small/mediumsized black steam engines looks pretty much like any other small/mediumsized black steam engine 

Very true - when I was showing my kids the engines I wanted to buy (mogul, consolidation, pacific, and mikado), I had to point the differences out to them.  They weren't readily apparent for those not accustomed to counting wheels.

 

 But far more important than what I think look good - it seemed from your design criteria like you really wanted to run diesels.

I really wanted to model both eras and switch between them, but after reading these forums and the problems involved with toggling eras (most notably cost), I decided to model the 20s as the primary - mainly because my childhood layout was diesel and I wanted to try something new.   Another reason I wanted to go steam initially is that I am really facinated by steam servicing facilities.  But you'll note that I pretty much revised the engine terminal out of the layout in favor of train operations.  So I really have no reason not to reset my era.  And I can always model that steam engine terminal on a second shelf layout somewhere.

Actually, this month's issue of MR is very timely for me, with articles on modeling excursion trains and a dedicated engine terminal layout

And as for modeling the transition era - I had considered it, but in the end, if I'm going to run diesels, I'd rather have them in Chessie paint (my first layout was Santa Fe).

 

 I would love to see what your final track plan ends up looking like after the tweaks.

Will do.  And again, thanks to everyone for the help.

--O'Dave

 

[subman]

Well, It think you have done a good job. I find nothing major to comment on the upper deck.  Oh, there's little things like you probably have room for a turntable and roundhouse. Or that it might make sense to switch the supply and engine service track to have more room for the tipple etc.

With the small steam you are using my guess is you are correct in your assessment of the grade.

So, make two laps to get down, Shorten the grade, give yourself a little more space to work under there.

[subman]

Well, It think you have done a good job. I find nothing major to comment on the upper deck.  Oh, there's little things like you probably have room for a turntable and roundhouse. Or that it might make sense to switch the supply and engine service track to have more room for the tipple etc.

With the small steam you are using my guess is you are correct in your assessment of the grade.

So, make two laps to get down, Shorten the grade, give yourself a little more space to work under there.

[markpierce]

Most mid-sized locomotives like Mike's should handle a train of ten 40' cars on 2.5% grades.  Unless you can stretch the curves to 30" or more, I'd stay with 60' passenger cars.  If you model within the transition era, you can have both steamers and first-generation diesels, and you won't need to change the originally-planned industries. 

Mark

[steinjr]

Thanks for the effort, Stein.  This may not make the grades any worse, but the 36" from the left side under 50" in elevation is blocked and cannot be used.  That means the two blue downgrade loops can't be where they are.  However, you have given me a config I didn't consider before. 

After sleeping on it, I came up with another angle at the problem:  I would be happy enough in changing my era to the late 1970s.  The 1920s is a druther, after all.  I have a 25+ year old Athearn diesel switcher that strolled up my test board with 10 cars at 2.5% and it didn't even break a sweat.  While double-headed steam would definitely look wrong in my setting, two geeps would be completely normal. 

 That's excellent!  And I am glad that the sketch helped you decide that you would rather go double headed diesels up a 2.5% grade than work on a twice around 2% nolix between staging and the layout for steam engines. Figuring out what you don't want to do is just as valuable as figuring out what you do want to do.

This means that the Pere Marquette turns into Chessie, the coal dealer turns into fuel oil dealer, the LCL freight at Lakefield turns in to a construction supplies/lumber yard, and I get refinery traffic at Carson City (I'd probably just model the loading/unloading facilities). 

 Frankly - to me that would sound more interesting than the Pere Marquette in the 1920.

 To me (and your mileage may very well vary a lot here - this is just a personal preference for me, not an attempt to tell other what they should like!) most small/mediumsized black steam engines looks pretty much like any other small/mediumsized black steam engine - there is little to signal from a distance which railroad you are modelling.

 That doesn't apply to the visually distinct (even from a distance) bigger steam engines like the Big Boys and Cab forwards, or the very obvious visibly different engines like camelback steam engines.

 But I just like the more colorful liveries diesels were painted in and I like Chessie. The Santa Fe Warbonnet design and the Chessie cat are two of the more distrinct visual designs that pretty much anyone who likes trains will be able to identify from far away.

 And you get a bonus from doubleheaded diesels - you don't have to turn engines at Carson City if you run them in pairs, one cab forward, one cab back.

 But far more important than what I think look good - it seemed from your design criteria like you really wanted to run diesels.

 So your decision is not at all a bad design decision seen from my point of view.

I can get my steam fix from excursions - say that  SRI restores the PM 1225 10 years earlier than they did and Chessie gives them permission to run on this line.

I'd also have to lengthen the spurs and sidings a bit to account for 50' cars, but that's no big deal.  The only thing I'm not sure about is how a 2-8-4 and longer passenger cars will fare on 24" radii curves.  I'd be more worried about derailments than appearance, since most of my sharp curves are hidden from view and there's no adjacent trackage or structures.  As it stands I could probably bump my minimum radius to 26" without hurting much.

Lots to think about as I work through my Honey-Do's this weekend.

 LOL - I have a few of those (Honey-Do's) due this weekend too.

 Btw - I pretty shamelessly collect & borrow/steal design ideas from others, since I never know when someone else's idea will come in handy to trigger an idea in myself. 

 And your initial design has already shown me quite a few good ideas I hadn't considered well enough on my own before - especially in the design of your yard in Carson City (and it's connections to staging).

 I would love to see what your final track plan ends up looking like after the tweaks. Up to you if you post your final pre-build plan here or if you PM me - if you don't mind showing me the final plan.

 Anyways - enjoy the planning!  And may your wife never figure out why some of the Honey-Do tasks might end up getting done a little absentmindedly while you think about something else instead! 

 I know my wife still is scratching her head about how I could take a laundry machine full of dirty clothes (she had forgotten to start the laundry machine) and hang them out to dry for her, without me even noticing that not only were the clothes not wet - they weren't particularily clean either 

 Grin,
 Stein

 

[odave]

Thanks for the effort, Stein.  This may not make the grades any worse, but the 36" from the left side under 50" in elevation is blocked and cannot be used.  That means the two blue downgrade loops can't be where they are.  However, you have given me a config I didn't consider before. 

After sleeping on it, I came up with another angle at the problem:  I would be happy enough in changing my era to the late 1970s.  The 1920s is a druther, after all.  I have a 25+ year old Athearn diesel switcher that strolled up my test board with 10 cars at 2.5% and it didn't even break a sweat.  While double-headed steam would definitely look wrong in my setting, two geeps would be completely normal. 

This means that the Pere Marquette turns into Chessie, the coal dealer turns into fuel oil dealer, the LCL freight at Lakefield turns in to a construction supplies/lumber yard, and I get refinery traffic at Carson City (I'd probably just model the loading/unloading facilities).  I can get my steam fix from excursions - say that  SRI restores the PM 1225 10 years earlier than they did and Chessie gives them permission to run on this line.

I'd also have to lengthen the spurs and sidings a bit to account for 50' cars, but that's no big deal.  The only thing I'm not sure about is how a 2-8-4 and longer passenger cars will fare on 24" radii curves.  I'd be more worried about derailments than appearance, since most of my sharp curves are hidden from view and there's no adjacent trackage or structures.  As it stands I could probably bump my minimum radius to 26" without hurting much.

Lots to think about as I work through my Honey-Do's this weekend.

Thanks again,

--O'Dave

 

 

[steinjr]

Nice work Stein.

Theoretically, galvanized steel 1/16 would be strong enough to handle a gap wide enough to run a train tunnel through and still give you the ability to pluck a train off the tracks.

At this grade, you really would need two laps get low enough for staging.

 Hmmm - how about something like this ?  I have not tried to optimize much - this is mainly a conceptual sketch. 

 

 In the first sketch the red tracks is the visible layout (rest is part of staging and staging access tracks) - elevations in plain text, grades withing <brackets>.

 

 Edit/addition:  

 In the second sketch the red tracks is descent to east staging:

 In the third sketch the red tracks is the descent to west staging:

 

 

Elevation profiles:

West staging to Lakeville:

 

 Visible layout (west of Lakeville to east of yard):

Yard to east staging:

Smile,
Stein

 

[SpaceMouse]

Nice work Stein.

Theoretically, galvanized steel 1/16 would be strong enough to handle a gap wide enough to run a train tunnel through and still give you the ability to pluck a train off the tracks.

At this grade, you really would need two laps get low enough for staging.

[steinjr]

I think I'll use spacemouse's suggestion and sneak a 0.5% grade in to Lakefield to buy an inch.  Mid-Michigan is dead flat, so I can't realistically do more, but I think that small of a grade won't stand out.  If I can get my worst grade down to 2.5% I think I'll be OK, and will  shorten the trains on the locos that can't handle it.

You can also make the thickness of the layout paper thin over the tunnel that as well and gain some more.  

BTW: only slope the main, you don't need to slope the spurs. You can also drop some between  Carson City and Lakefield on the left and climb back up on the other side.

 This might not work at all - let me warn you that although I am reasonably good at seeing clearances in the same plane, I am challenged when it comes to visualizing vertical clearances - but here is something I was sketching out as one possible way of holding inclines under 2% while trying to avoid making separation over the staging tracks too attrocious.

Location of the two turnouts that form the X for branching out to east and west staging would have to be moved a little left - probably replaced by two curved turnouts - but that shouldn't change the grade on the two innermost curves on the left too much - ought to still be possible to stay under 2%, I believe.

 This is not a direct solution for you.

 But think about having grades on the staging deck(s) - that might help with your problem.

 Vertical distance top of rail to top of rail over Lakeville staging is between 5.5" at worst and 6.5" at best, vertical distance top of rail to top of rail over Carson City staging is between 5" (at worst) and 6" (at best).

 Vertical clearance is worse for the 1.9% track leading down along the backside of the upper staging area - from a worst of 3" at the right end (where it ducks under) to a best of 5.5" (by the turnouts). This is the least accessible track too. At a derailment here, you probably would have to empty Lakeville staging to get at it. Or have removable scenery on top (along the upper wall), so you could go in from the top here.

 Anyways - from the vertical separations given here, you need to subtract the thickness of upper level baseboard and supports for these flat areas. Think thin steel supporting brackets and a thin, yet pretty rigid upper level baseboard here maybe metal - certainly thin metal plates at the duckunder locations - over where the trains duck under the upper track to go into the staging level.

 Guys - I have no experience with metal as a building materiale. How thin could O'dave get away with making baseboard plus support & room for under track turnout machines & wiring for these two plateaus (Lakeville and Carson City) if he had gone the way of metal baseboard and metal supports in these two areas ?

 Stein

 

[Capt. Grimek]

Thanks O'Dave for the PM and dialogue!
You all are helping a really nice guy out with his planning! I look forward to watching from the sidelines to see what works out and what doesn't.
Even if I don't ultimately go with his design, (due to lack of my own skills level) it's shown me that a workable layout for my challenging space (although I'm going to give it a try), IS possible and that alone has reinvigorated my too long dormant interest in reviving this great hobby in my own home. Thanks!

[jecorbett]

I think the concept is good but I think as you already know, the fly in the ointment might be the grades. My experience tells me 10-15 car trains on a 2.7% curving grade will require a big loco or doubleheaders. Also, have you figured how much flat space you'll have for staging at the bottom of the grades. You'll need ladder tracks at both ends of the staging yard and those can eat up a lot of length. My suggestion would be a diamond shape staging yard so all your staging tracks are the same length. I'd try laying out your staging tracks on the floor first so you can see just how much space you will need for that staging yard.  

As an alternative to lower level staging yard, you might want to consider a hidden staging yard behind a backdrop or row of building flats on the main level. That would eliminate the need for grades altogether. 

[SpaceMouse]

I think I'll use spacemouse's suggestion and sneak a 0.5% grade in to Lakefield to buy an inch.  Mid-Michigan is dead flat, so I can't realistically do more, but I think that small of a grade won't stand out.  If I can get my worst grade down to 2.5% I think I'll be OK, and will  shorten the trains on the locos that can't handle it.

You can also make the thickness of the layout paper thin over the tunnel that as well and gain some more.  

BTW: only slope the main, you don't need to slope the spurs. You can also drop some between  Carson City and Lakefield on the left and climb back up on the other side.

[odave]

any place you can stick a helix ? No walls that could be pierced or some such thing ?

Unfortunately, no.  I tried to stick a helix in every concievable spot but it either took up way too much space or had poor access.

I think I'll use spacemouse's suggestion and sneak a 0.5% grade in to Lakefield to buy an inch.  Mid-Michigan is dead flat, so I can't realistically do more, but I think that small of a grade won't stand out.  If I can get my worst grade down to 2.5% I think I'll be OK, and will  shorten the trains on the locos that can't handle it.

I would put more staging tracks on the west staging side.

Gotcha.  Didn't think about that... 

Best situation, loading dock on one side, open access by truck on the other.

OK.  How about a ramp on the end for end-loading flat cars?

... and if you wouldn't be offended by a "copycat"

Heck no.  Some of my ideas have been lifted from other published plans.  Swipe away!  I'll PM you back shortly.

The first thing I would do, if I didn't have the restrictions of my room, is to find a way to turn the duckunder into a lift-out or swing gate.  It's probably the thing I like least about my plan.  Also, I would run the staging loop all the way to the back to shorten the grades.  Because of the angled track, loosing 18 inches won't translate directly into 18 inches less on the straight runs.  I'll play around with a shorter config and let you know what it looks like.

--O'Dave  

 

[dale8chevyss]

I am (hopefully) in the final planning stages for my 2nd layout and am looking for feedback.  My previous layout was built 25+ years ago when I was a teenager, and it had no real plan.  I've done more homework for this layout. 

I wanted to model the Pere Marquette in mid-Michigan, which is where I grew up. I also wanted to include a live interchange with the Grand Trunk Western, which reflects where I live now. However, I don't think my skills and available free time are up to the task of accurately modeling an actual location where I could meet both of those wants. So I decided to semi-freelance a fictional PM direct line from Saginaw to Grand Rapids, rather than the meandering "Turkey Trail" that actually existed. 

The theme for this area is primarily small town agriculture with some manufacturing.  There were also active coal mines nearby in the 1920s, but I'm not interested in modeling them beyond having some coal trains pass through. 

With this layout, I'm trying to achieve a balance between scenery and operations - I want to have interesting operations yet leave enough room for the scenery to breathe.  Given my available space, switching will be more prevalent than running, but I don't want a pure switching layout.

I feel pretty good about what I came up with, but I'd like a sanity check from you guys.

Critical Info
-------------
1) Setting: Late 1920s semi-fictional mid-Michigan (and late 1970s when nobody's looking  )
2) Prototype: Pere Marquette (main) Grand Trunk Western (live interchange)
3) 10' x 18' overall available space with some restrictions
4) HO Scale
5) Minimum radius: 24"
6) Turnouts: #6 main, #5 and #4 in yard/industries.
7) Power: 0-6-0, 2-6-0, 2-8-0, 2-8-2, 4-6-2 (and geeps when nobody's looking)
8) Standard train length: 10 x 40' box cars
9) Longest car: 60' pre-1930s passenger coach
10) Operators will be primarily myself and my kids (1-3 operators)
11) I have a duckunder and I understand all the negatives.  I'll sign the waiver

Here's the current track plan.  It's essentially a twice-around with the second loop running underneath the main deck for access to 10 stub-ended staging tracks (5 each side).

The scenicked main deck will have no grades. The steepest grade down to staging is 2.8%. I plan on running trains of 10-15 cars max. The separation from the main deck to lower level staging for Lakefield is 7", Carson City 4.5".  Staged trains will be made up on the main deck and run down to staging, they will not be fiddled in place.

My main concerns are:
---------------------
1) Staging access grade of 2.8% might be too steep. I could cut it to 2.7% or 2.6% by decreasing the height between decks, but would a tenths' change really make much of a difference, especially given my problem with...

2) Clearance over the staging deck.  I see this is already being discussed in the Crazy Idea thread.

3) Enough industries.  I've had some feedback elsewhere that I should add more.  I did add a set of team tracks in the yard plus the a milk platform by the farm, and am thinking of adding a creamery to Carson City along the backdrop, but I feel that by adding more spurs I may start to crowd the scenery. 

Thanks for your time,

--O'Dave

 

  WOAH!  The top picture first looked to me like an aireal of Daytona International Speedway or Talladega Superspeedway!  It's all there, the pit roads, where Lake Lloyd would be...LOL

[Capt. Grimek]

O'Dave,Please excuse my pseudo highjhacking here, but I've got an "impossible" building space and your plan is the lst one that seems workable that I've been able to
find for it that will give me the benefit of others planning for me. I'm a complete beginner and have already proven myself hopeless with my own attempts at planning.

I've only use Atlas snap track plans before) and would like to know if this track plan and layout construction could be adapted as is (using flex track) but one and a half feet shorter in length.

Would that entail merely leaving out one and a half feet of straight track on either side or will that throw off other factors like the 24" radius on the ends or make any of the yard spurs unworkable, etc.? I'm willing to run slightly shorter trains than the OP to fit that limitation.

Please advise me as to what would be necessary to fit O'Dave's plan into my 8'X16' room.
The edges of the layout would touch all walls. The only way for me to gain decent access would be to build it reasonably high 48"-53" top level and to use a mechanic's crawler!

I hope you don't mind my admiring your layout plan enough to consider duplicating it O'Dave?
My only available/potential layout space is a recording studio with a dividing wall in the middle with a 24"-27" doorway on the "North" side of your layout. The wall is a very expensive acoustically sealed double wall that has to stay, but tunnel plugs (when recording) and taking your mainline (N. side) through the 9" space between the wall and door jam would likely be workable.

Please advise Spacemouse, et. al.? Thanks very much! I'm hopeless with the computer planning programs I've tried via free downloads. I'm a visual, physical placement in the "material world" kind of track kind of planner.

P.S. I've obviously abandoned my attempts to adapt my former benchwork for the "Big Panhandle" for this space that I posted about in my lst post a few days back.
I went to an operating session at a local club and O'Dave's plan looks like a great
possibility for success, especially as I can benefit from the same advice you are giving him.

O'Dave, if others think I could adapt your plan, and if you wouldn't be offended by a "copycat" may I PM you "down the road" with some questions and requests for pics?
If you'd be willing to PM or email me a copy of your plan with the graph paper/squares
on it that would be my best shot at building a room model or taping the track plan out on the floor, etc.*

I hope I haven't broken any/all rules of etiquette asking?

Thank you everyone for your patience and advice. If you'd like me to start a new thread so as not to highjack or go to PMs please let me know what you'd all prefer? Chomping at the bit to start building!

Thank you very much,
The Good Capt. Grimek

* P.S. I just contacted O'Dave via a PM so as to be as considerate as possible...

[dehusman]

I would put more staging tracks on the west staging side.  By having an equal number you can't run the same number of trains in both directions on the PM (since one or two tracks will be holding GTW transfers.

The team track shouldn't have a loading dock on both sides.  Best situation, loading dock on one side, open access by truck on the other.

Dave H.

[steinjr]

It may be worthwhile experimenting with pulling capacity on level ground to establish roughly what you can expect from your engines and cars.

I did an experiment last night with my IHC 2-8-0 on a scrap piece of plywood set at 3%.  It was struggling with an 8 car train, but my test board wasn't long enough for a vertical easment, so I was actually starting it on the grade. The trains will have a decent level running start before hitting the grade - will that help?   The 2-8-0 did much better at 2.5%, so I'm really going to take a look at getting the grades down.

 Mmmm - I think this will be the main challenge. Any place you can stick a helix ? No walls that could be pierced or some such thing ?

 

...eminently sane

My wife has been questioning my sanity, however

 LOL. Sounds familiar 

 Smile,
 Stein

 

 

[SpaceMouse]

You can make up an inch or more by making some of the flat areas into grades, like between towns. Nothing makes railroading less fun than poor access.

[odave]

Thanks for all of the replies and kind words.  I have gotten a lot of great information from this and other RR forums, you've saved me from many mistakes and wrong turns.  Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.  Specific replies are below.

a pair of Geeps roaring through Lakefield with a priority through freight would not upset the temporal police too much.

The town of Lakefield is based on the small town I grew up in, where most of the structures from the 20s were still present when I was a kid in the 70s.  The coal dealer's pit and conveyor were still there into the late 1980s.  By carefully choosing the structures, I could probably pull off multi-era if I disregarded dilapidation and other details.  The kids won't care anyway, so I'll set the time machine for 1979 when I want to run my geeps.  The town will just be having a "Heritage Days" festival or something.

One minor concern...does the benchwork fill the room completely?

Not quite - there is a 2' aisle on the bottom ("north") of Carson City to allow access to a closet.  Lakefield is flush against the opposite wall.

Oh, there's little things like you probably have room for a turntable and roundhouse

The engine terminal area was intended to be one of those "implied off-board" things since I didn't think I had the space to model it well.  Those tracks are basically just staging and I would be turning any engines by hand with a cradle (as Stein guessed).  My preliminary train schedule has only 2 or 3 locals turning here, so I figured that this would be OK.  But now you guys have convinced me to take another look at modeling that area.

So, make two laps to get down, Shorten the grade

Hmmm. I don't think another lap will really help with the grade issue, since the major restriction that sets the grade is the final run from underneath CC up to the east side of LF. AIUI, I need a minimum of 3" vertical clearance.  Decreasing the grade on that final run would result in decreasing the clearance between the bottom of the CC benchtop and the top of the staging track rails.  The clearance right now is 4", and if I go to the minimum of 3", the best I can do on that run is ~2.5%.  I could also lower LF an inch or so, which means I'll have to raise the river (or build a dam in the back) to let WB CC trains clear it and get down to staging.  Or am I missing something?

I could extend the staging loop to use the shelving underneath the engine terminal area, but access would be abysmal.  Any problem would mean clearing out those shelves and crawling inside to fix it, and I think I would rather change my era first.

...the double ended siding in Lakefield seems to be 8+ feet long

It's actually only ~6.5' long.  Just enough for a 10 x 40' car train + loco + cab to sit there for a meet.  The 15 car trains are intended to be priority through freights from staging to staging, and maybe getting cut-ins at CC, so they won't be taking any sidings.  The A/D track can hold a 14 car train, and it will double as a pasing siding.  I read somewhere (Armstrong?) that it's OK for small layouts to have dual usage tracks.  The yard job will have to be on the ball, though.  The spurs were designed to hold a minimum of 2 x 40' cars, but most of them hold more.  The exception is the RIP track, which can hold one 60' car (my largest).

How much space do you have between the junction of the A/D & runaround track and the westbound main ?

Not enough - it will foul the main.  I did have trackage to allow engine escape without fouling the main, but it looked awkward and it limited the length of the EB/WB body tracks.  So I traded off occasionally fouling the main for longer body tracks.  As you suggest, I was planning on fudging the traffic to allow for this.

I expect trains lengths for interchange to GTW will be shorter than 15 cars...I assume you are not planning too many trains to GTW during an operating session

You are reading my mind - it's scary   Yes, GTW trains will be shorter and only 1 or 2 will run per session.  The tracks will hold 8 x 40' cars.  It's mainly my excuse to run GTW equipment (bluebirds when nobody is looking)

It may be worthwhile experimenting with pulling capacity on level ground to establish roughly what you can expect from your engines and cars.

I did an experiment last night with my IHC 2-8-0 on a scrap piece of plywood set at 3%.  It was struggling with an 8 car train, but my test board wasn't long enough for a vertical easment, so I was actually starting it on the grade. The trains will have a decent level running start before hitting the grade - will that help?   The 2-8-0 did much better at 2.5%, so I'm really going to take a look at getting the grades down.

...eminently sane

My wife has been questioning my sanity, however

GP30s and GP9s would be perfect power for the late 70's

I watched a lot of them roll through my town and had a couple on my old layout.  No reason to keep 'em in the closet!

You have plenty of room for a quintessential small-town track plan at Lakefield.  Why not consider it?

I did have something like this in an earlier iteration, but I think I moved away from it because it limited the spur lengths and crowded building placement in town.  There may also have been some irrational aesthetic issues too - I have a thing for objects being at different angles for viewing different sides.  The arrangment you mention is very parallel (for good reason), but my right brain may have overridden my left brain and the prototype in this case.  Many items have changed since I had that arrangement, so I'll have to pull up the old files to jog my memory.

I don't think a yard tower is necessary for such a small yard...

Consider that nit picked

Thanks again, everyone.

[markpierce]

Hmmm.

I don't think a yard tower is necessary for such a small yard...and the yard office should be closer to the action...relocate to yard tower spot.  (Nitpicky me!)

Mark

[markpierce]

Good plan.

You have plenty of room for a quintessential small-town track plan at Lakefield.  Why not consider it?

Quintessential small-town: the passenger depot and freight station (or more typically, a combination depot) should have a double-ended spur (looks like a passing siding but isn't meant for passing/meeting of trains) for the house track between the mainline and station(s).  If there is need for a passing siding, that would be on the opposite side of the mainline.  Double-ended spurs would preferably serve the industries: single-ended if double-ended isn't practical.

Mark

[Packers#1]

I ain't an expert, but your track plan looks great. I prefer modern diesels (when everybody's looking [or not]). GP30s and GP9s would be perfect power for the late 70's (Maybe even a single SD 24/35). Overall, great job.

[steinjr]

 

 Your plan seems very sensible and very doable.

 You can run point-to-point from staging to staging (with two ways out to west staging). You have a well executed case of "X-factor staging" - which makes it possible to do continuous run past staging and to reset trains in staging by backing a train that has arrived in west staging engine innermost on the single ended staging track back into east staging to be ready for a new appearance from the east engine with the engine leading the consist.  

 You have an adequate number of staging tracks (5 each way) and adequate length of staging tracks given that you are planning to run trains of maximum 10-15 40' (or so - given your preferred era) cars - ie train lengths roughly on the order of 65-90" (5.5 - 7.5 feet).

 You haven't included track & spur lengths, but estimating lengths of sidings etc from the fact that your layout is 17.5 feet left-right and 8 feet top-bottom in the drawing, it seems like you also have sidings of appropriate lengths - the double ended siding in Lakefield seems to be 8+ feet long - long enough for having two full length trains passing each other in Lakefield.

  Yard seems well designed.

 A/D track has a sensible length. You have provided a dedicated yard lead of a sensible length. All tracks, including the regular industries in the yard area, can be worked from the yard lead on east end of the yard. 

 Only car destination that cannot be worked from the east is the engine terminal supplies track. Not a problem - you have runaround possibilities in the yard and the supplies track probably won't be an all that frequent destination anyways.

 I would swap around supplies track and engine service track. You will either have to turn engines by hand (possibly using an engine cradle) or use a roundtable to turn steam engines.

 In either case you probably want the engine track on the outermost lead, closest to the operating pit. That also leaves you most space for e.g. a water tower and a coaling tower  - nice scenic and operational elements.

 Looks like you can work the yard without fouling the main. 

  With the possible exception of the west end of the runaround/escape track - it is hard to estimate here from the drawing (without seeing a closeup of this ara) whether you have left yourself enough space for an engine to do a runaround (possibly dragging a caboose) without fouling the main towards Grand Rapids. 

 How much space do you have between the junction of the A/D & runaround track and the westbound main ? One engine of the size you indicate plus a caboose would need about 14-15" of clearance before the main if you want to be able to do runarounds here without fouling the main. OTOH, it depends on the amount of traffic if you need to stay totally off the main while doing these runarounds to the west end of the A/D track.

 I expect trains lengths for interchange to GTW will be shorter than 15 cars ? Yard tracks for trains to GTW and from GTW seem a little short for 15 car trains.

 I assume you are not planning too many trains to GTW during an operating session - it seems to me that to reset a train "to GTW" into a train "from GTW" you would have to swap the engine and caboose by hand (possibly after taking the train up to the main level of the layout) .

 Overhead clearances for staging seems adequate - 4.5" is a little tight, but not too bad, especially if you also have access to the lowermost staging tracks in from the aisle below Carson City in the case of a derailment. 

 You specified that your space available was 10 x 18 feet, and your layout as shown takes 8 x 17.5 feet, leaving room for a 2 foot aisle along the lower end of the layout (geographically north of Carson City - given that west is to the right, east is to the left).

 2.8% incline through curve may be on the steep side for one engine with 15 cars. Depends on how many cars your engines can pull on level ground and how strong your engines are.  

 John Armstrong estimates in "Track Planning for Realistic Operations" that pulling capacity for an engine on a 2% average incline across train length will be about 40% of pulling capacity on level ground. Pulling capacity on a 3% incline will be roughly 30% of pulling capacity on level ground. With average free-rolling cars.

 It may be worthwhile experimenting with pulling capacity on level ground to establish roughly what you can expect from your engines and cars.

 Industry tracks in Lakefield seems sensible. Two topmost industry spurs can most easily be switched by a freigh train eastbound from Carson City towards Saginaw, lowermost industry track can most easily be switched by a westbound freight train from Saginaw towards Carson City. But you can use the siding as a runaround for facing moves while leaving cars on the main east or west of Lakefield if you have to.

 All taken into account - this looks (to me) like an eminently sane and well designed layout.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[SpaceMouse]

Well, It think you have done a good job. I find nothing major to comment on the upper deck.  Oh, there's little things like you probably have room for a turntable and roundhouse. Or that it might make sense to switch the supply and engine service track to have more room for the tipple etc.

With the small steam you are using my guess is you are correct in your assessment of the grade.

So, make two laps to get down, Shorten the grade, give yourself a little more space to work under there.

[alfadawg01]

Given the premise of this being the layout for you and the kiddos, I think you've planned well.  Just enough switching to get interesting but not too much to get frustrating.  And I think a pair of Geeps roaring through Lakefield with a priority through freight would not upset the temporal police too much.

One minor concern...does the benchwork fill the room completely?  My issue would be with the track running downgrade along the bottom of the plan.  That might be a bugger to get to for maintenance and, um, unusual event remediation.  Otherwise, I wish I had it in my non-existant basement.

[odave]

I am (hopefully) in the final planning stages for my 2nd layout and am looking for feedback.  My previous layout was built 25+ years ago when I was a teenager, and it had no real plan.  I've done more homework for this layout. 

I wanted to model the Pere Marquette in mid-Michigan, which is where I grew up. I also wanted to include a live interchange with the Grand Trunk Western, which reflects where I live now. However, I don't think my skills and available free time are up to the task of accurately modeling an actual location where I could meet both of those wants. So I decided to semi-freelance a fictional PM direct line from Saginaw to Grand Rapids, rather than the meandering "Turkey Trail" that actually existed. 

The theme for this area is primarily small town agriculture with some manufacturing.  There were also active coal mines nearby in the 1920s, but I'm not interested in modeling them beyond having some coal trains pass through. 

With this layout, I'm trying to achieve a balance between scenery and operations - I want to have interesting operations yet leave enough room for the scenery to breathe.  Given my available space, switching will be more prevalent than running, but I don't want a pure switching layout.

I feel pretty good about what I came up with, but I'd like a sanity check from you guys.

Critical Info
-------------
1) Setting: Late 1920s semi-fictional mid-Michigan (and late 1970s when nobody's looking  )
2) Prototype: Pere Marquette (main) Grand Trunk Western (live interchange)
3) 10' x 18' overall available space with some restrictions
4) HO Scale
5) Minimum radius: 24"
6) Turnouts: #6 main, #5 and #4 in yard/industries.
7) Power: 0-6-0, 2-6-0, 2-8-0, 2-8-2, 4-6-2 (and geeps when nobody's looking)
8) Standard train length: 10 x 40' box cars
9) Longest car: 60' pre-1930s passenger coach
10) Operators will be primarily myself and my kids (1-3 operators)
11) I have a duckunder and I understand all the negatives.  I'll sign the waiver

Here's the current track plan.  It's essentially a twice-around with the second loop running underneath the main deck for access to 10 stub-ended staging tracks (5 each side).

The scenicked main deck will have no grades. The steepest grade down to staging is 2.8%. I plan on running trains of 10-15 cars max. The separation from the main deck to lower level staging for Lakefield is 7", Carson City 4.5".  Staged trains will be made up on the main deck and run down to staging, they will not be fiddled in place.

My main concerns are:
---------------------
1) Staging access grade of 2.8% might be too steep. I could cut it to 2.7% or 2.6% by decreasing the height between decks, but would a tenths' change really make much of a difference, especially given my problem with...

2) Clearance over the staging deck.  I see this is already being discussed in the Crazy Idea thread.

3) Enough industries.  I've had some feedback elsewhere that I should add more.  I did add a set of team tracks in the yard plus the a milk platform by the farm, and am thinking of adding a creamery to Carson City along the backdrop, but I feel that by adding more spurs I may start to crowd the scenery. 

Thanks for your time