sfcgadget wrote:Looks pretty good. Is there any way to add a siding or two on the outer track? A small narrow extention for a interchange/fiddle yard would be great if you could add it to the outer loop so it attaches on an end of the table or forms an L.
I have thought of that. I think that I will probably put in turnouts to allow it, but just leave it at that for a while, but know that if I ever wanted to expand from it I could.
kevin
David star-
I dont think I can make the spurs any longer. plus if i keep them this length, then we can fill them with what we have, I know that if I make it longer and can fill it with more cars, then more cars will be bought, I dont need to buy more, nor do I want to.
Work in a long siding...one for a whole train....I didnt consider this. If i went to a full 5' deep, I would have room for one. Its a thought I will ponder. thanks for the idea. as it stands now, the freight runs on the inner circle, so when the passenger train is stopped, the freight can continue, that is as long as the passengers are not boarding on the city side, if so, the freight must stop as the people need to cross the freight tracks to get to the passenger cars. I am not too worried on this as this is exactly what happens in Claremont, NH. the freight waits for the amtrak to stop and pick up people and the people walk across the tracks the freight engine is waiting on.
in the plan, yes, all the buildings are makred store. thats my lazyness coming through. they wont all be stores. they will be buildings that I find interest me and nicholas...I just labled them all store and I used the same building from the library too. Kims house I think it was, from Atlas.
I tried to get the crossing gates, with flashing lights and automatic lowering. when my wife saw the price for the whole set up, she didnt like it. so even if we have the road cross, there wont be any such crossing gates. the road crosses over the tracks to create the scene separation.
I have not read track planning for realistic operation.
Thanks for the relection though some very good points.
Kevin
It has possibilites. The view block down the center is a good idea. It gives a back drop and blocks the view across the table. If you can see the tracks and trains going down one side and back up the other, it is hard not to think of a model train running round a table. With the view block, you get two scenes, into which the train enters and leaves. Much more convincing. Plus the back drop allows good photographs of your trains and layout, from eye level, without unprototypical things like floor lamps and walls showing in the photo.
The double track main will allow you and your son to run a train apiece round the main line. Good feature. You have a fair number of spur tracks to serve industries, and allow a peddler freight to drop off and pick up cars. Can you make the spurs any longer? A longer spur can hold more cars, and you will find your cars expand to fill track available.
Can you work in a long siding? Long enough to stash an entire ready to go train? This would allow you to change the train you have running on the main line. You halt the running train, bring the new train onto the main from the siding, and run the old train onto the siding. or a siding for the station, allowing your passenger train to stop, load/unload passengers and baggage while the frieghts roar thru on t he main line?
Condsider replacing some of the stores in the town with rail served businesses. A lumber yard, a coal dealer, an oil dealer, a saw mill, or the takes-any-kind-of-car team track.
Consider having your road cross the main line. This lets you install grade crossing protection, a pair of gates that lower, with red flashers on the gate, backed up with a pair of crossbucks, also flashing red. The crossing protection can put on a very attention catching show.
Have you read "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong?
Good luck.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
its a Spectrum K4.
it does it all, picks at the facing points, and climbs out of the frog, but on only 2 of my snap switches. I dont think its the engine, as it did none of that behavior on the peco's. I think the snap switches are faulty.
not a big deal as I will not use any snap switches ever again in a layout., well...never say never right?
ondrek wrote: Autobus Prime wrote: ondrek wrote:I tested out the right hand side of the stair climbing turnouts. every engine and car I sent through it seemed to go just fine.o:That's the way to do it. If you can save days of analysis by fifteen minutes of testing, test away. Do be sure to run some trains backward through the crossovers, too, because that's the real test. The slack and pushing emphasizes any tendency to derail. Backwards, right, I did that, but with the engine only, it worked, but I will need to do it with cars linked up. on the current layout, derailures occur with the engines, well, maggies really, as she is the only one with an engine with a leading truck. that truck does not like the atlas snap switches we have. cars would derail only when the switches werent set right as cars went through.Kevin
Autobus Prime wrote: ondrek wrote:I tested out the right hand side of the stair climbing turnouts. every engine and car I sent through it seemed to go just fine.o:That's the way to do it. If you can save days of analysis by fifteen minutes of testing, test away. Do be sure to run some trains backward through the crossovers, too, because that's the real test. The slack and pushing emphasizes any tendency to derail.
ondrek wrote:I tested out the right hand side of the stair climbing turnouts. every engine and car I sent through it seemed to go just fine.
Backwards, right, I did that, but with the engine only, it worked, but I will need to do it with cars linked up. on the current layout, derailures occur with the engines, well, maggies really, as she is the only one with an engine with a leading truck. that truck does not like the atlas snap switches we have. cars would derail only when the switches werent set right as cars went through.
Texas Zepher wrote: ondrek wrote: Texas Zepher wrote: ondrek wrote:I have taken out the switch back.I just meant the double switchback.I guess I dont understand what you meant then. I thought the switchback that i had over near the two factories was what you were referring to. double switchback? what were you referring to?A switchback is where a locomotive has to pull a train into one siding and then back up to get into another siding. In your original plan a train had to pull left into the first sticks-&-stones siding, then backup to the right where the tower is (switchback 1), then had to pull left again into the factory siding (switchback 2).
ondrek wrote: Texas Zepher wrote: ondrek wrote:I have taken out the switch back.I just meant the double switchback.I guess I dont understand what you meant then. I thought the switchback that i had over near the two factories was what you were referring to. double switchback? what were you referring to?
Texas Zepher wrote: ondrek wrote:I have taken out the switch back.I just meant the double switchback.
ondrek wrote:I have taken out the switch back.
Right, then we were talking about the same thing.
current design:
I tested out the right hand side of the stair climbing turnouts. every engine and car I sent through it seemed to go just fine. So the double slips are not needed. good thing, that was going to run me over $100, I got all the #4's I needed for $52. I just need to get the peco 24 degree crossing now. and then wait till I can start taring down the old layout.
Texas Zepher wrote: ondrek wrote:Oh and to the advice of everyone, I have taken out the switch back.I can't speak for the others, but I didn't necessarily mean take out the switchback - I just meant the double switchback.
ondrek wrote:Oh and to the advice of everyone, I have taken out the switch back.
Charlie -
the passenger service is made of the following:(and this is HO, I dont think it was ever mentioned)
modern passenger service - Amtrak AMD 103 (4wheel trucks 9" total length) with three matched passenger cars each being about 9" long each, 4 wheel trucks. By the time this layout is built there will be a second AMD 103, but a dummy to trail behind the second passenger car, the 3rd passenger car will be left out to dry as it was a observation.
Steam passenger service - my wife's K4 pacific 4-6-2 with three 40' passenger cars
I know the AMD will work on the 22 radi, I have it running right now on 18" radi. the K4 runs on the current layout with 18" as well. that engine only derails on two different snap switches, and thus is the reason why I will not use snap switches in the new layout. I used 22 in this layout just to make it look better, no other reason, i originally designed this to have 18 on the outside and a mix of 18 and 15 on the inside, that got it to fit on a 4x8.
Freight service will consist of 1 GP38 and will haul a vari of different box cars. 40' mostly, I do have 1 50' flat car that nicholas uses. but that navigates the current 18" layout with ease already so no worries there. other freight will be handled by my 0-8-0 and my small 0-6-0 these will haul the stones and logs, 3 loads and a stub caboose only.
So short trains, and short cars, the only exception is the Amtrak and my wife's K4. the K4 does not get run often though.
I just scored 5 peco #4's and one #4 right for $52 so the double slips are not going to make the cut.
so after the sections arrive, I will put out a test track using the #4's and a 24 degree crossing and see how things run.
Flex track, well, i have some, well, see...maybe I will do some test runs and see how they come out. I am going to have to take the current layout down before I can do these tests though as there is no other room to set up test tables.
Oh and to the advice of everyone, I have taken out the switch back.
Well, those S curves won't do full lenth passenger equipment any good. But then full length passenger equipment probably won't be too happy on the 22" radius curves let alone the 18" radius curves. And using the double slips doesn't eliminate this problem, all crossovers have an S-curve built in as you go from one parallel track to the next.
To make this nicer you could go to #6 turnouts for the crossover. They may not fit entiredly well in front of the town. How about moving one crossover to the country side of the layout?
Perhaps you could fit a run around track into the town area itself off the mainlines?
As long as you're running smallish locos (4 axle diesels or 2-8-0 or smaller steam) and 50' or shorter cars the #4 cross overs, while not ideal should work ok. But you can test this out before building the layout by tacking a couple of switches together in a cross over configuration adding some track to the ends of the switches, add some power with clip leads, and test it out with what you've got.
Although it may be a bit out of your comfort zone, if you were to forsake the sectional track for flex track it would allow you to be more flexible in your track planning. Including using #6 turnouts for cross overs.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Charlie Comstock
What about the s curves that the use of the #4 turnouts creates?
there is an scurve when an engine goes from the outter loop to the inner one...but then lets say the engine continues on to the 24degree crossing, there is another turnout, the cars being pulled could still be on the outter loop. wont this "staircase stepping" design cause some possible problems? that was the real advantage I saw with using the double slips. I know they are more $, I didnt like that part, but if it made the trains run more dependable then I would do it.
I don't see the advantage of the double slips. They reduce the length of the runaround track and they'll set you back $$$ (of course there are only 2 of 'em vs 4 other switches). I'd keep the original configuration.
Sounds like you've been thinking alot about the layout plan!
Good luck,
ondrek wrote:I talked things over with nicholas and my wife...
The setting will be october just as the current layout is, hopefully this one we will get to the point where pumpkins will be on door steps allong with holloween displays on porches.
BCSJ wrote:<p>Looks like a promising start. </p><p>1. If you really want to have 3 trains going at once you'll need to modify the city area to not require the 3rd train to come out on the inner oval to go from the roundhouse lead to the industry lead.</p><p>2. That switchback will be a pain to deal with since using the run around will foul both of the main tracks.</p><p>3. Unless you're in love with the roundhouse and turntable perhaps a 3 track yard could use that space (with yard ops being that 3rd train)? Or run a short branchline around one end of the layout to the country side. Let it serve a grain elevator or mine or ?</p><p>4. Making the run around a bit longer will let you deal with longer trains.</p><p>5. If sectional track is what you're comfortable with, then by all means go ahead with it. But flex track will give you a lot more planning flexibility (and with fewer rail joints it should be a bit more reliable).</p><p>6. The idea of making the backdrop/divider curved or offesting it seems like something to look further at (to me anyway). It might allow some more interesting scenic opportunities.</p><p>7. Putting another cross over on the country side of the layout might allow for a bit more interesting operation. </p><p>Looks like you're going to have fun with this one.</p><p>And don't feel bad about the first layout not turning out the way you'd hoped. If we all waited until we had perfect track plans before building anything, nothing would ever get built. </p><p>When I had my 4x8 layout I made a bunch of 'tiles' by cutting 3/4" plastic I-beams into 1" long pieces. I labeled each piece with the name of an industry and stuck 'em in a small container. When I wanted to do freight switching I'd pull the freight train into town then pull tiles out of the container and set them on top of cars in the train. Then I'd deliver those cars to the industries the tiles said they should go to. If there was already a car at that industry I'd pick it up. After a while I got a bit more persnickety and if the tile for a tank car said it should go to the warehouse I'd start pulling more tiles until I found one for an industry the tank car would be appropriate for. Just a suggestion how you might do some easy 'operation'. </p><p>Good luck to you!</p><p>Charlie Comstock </p><p> </p>
I have taken the idea of a ridge for a separation and implemented it, its a great idea.
I talked things over with nicholas and my wife and things were as i figured. the small town with a center green must stay. I MUST include a model of our house, something that was suposed to be done for the current layout, but just not done yet. the Farm must stay. the country side of the layout will not change. this side of the layout is to be just for watching mostly. thats the reason for the simple siding for the freight. this is the side of the layout that will be facing out to the room.the city side had minor changes, i put in 2 double slips. now, the atlas doesnt have them in the program, but the 12.5 degree crossing they have is close to the 12 degree double slip that peco has, so i used that as a stand in. also the crossing in the program is 25.5 degrees, where as the peco is 24 degree. this difference has caused my track sections to no longer fit in the program, but I feel that in reality, the peco ones will. I will test this all out before actual constructions starts of course.These double slips will do 2 things...1 allow a freight engine to come out of either the roundhouse end or the sidings end and stay on the inner loop, the freight line. 2. allow for smoother transitions, the s curves that were created by the previous #4 turnouts could have posed problems for everyone. All this and I still get the run around. I understand that the run around causes issues because it uses the passenger line, but I will have to live with that.dealing with the issue of will the buildings fit where I have drawn them...they might, they might not. the boxes on the drawing are just to give me a ballpark idea.
The round house got a lot of smiles. looks like it will stay. it may not be the best use of space nor get used a whole lot, but no one said that they wanted something else either.
I dont think that the switchback will be all that bad, as I dont see freight being more than 3 to 4 cars total. so any kind of work can be done one car at a time. we dont have much nor do i plan on getting more rolling stock. I see a typical session being made up of nicholas running his passenger service. having a freight engine running on the inner loop, and if I feel up to it sending out a small 2 car stone/log from sticks n stones to go get more raw materials from the siding in the country. but doing so will mean that that engine is the lowest on the totem pole and will have to wait its turn to get into the loop.
thanks for the ideas, they were great. Now what I need to do is get a 24 degree crossing and 2 double slips without costing me an arm and a leg.
Autobus Prime wrote:Another idea: I have come to the conclusion that divider backdrops are somewhat of an eyesore. How about a tree-covered ridge going irregularly across. The trees will screen the view, but still allow one town to serve as a vague "backdrop" for the other. A big ridge isn't needed, just a low rise that provides some mental and physical separation.Crude sketch:
Exactly. A ridge, even a low one, and some trees, bushes, etc. will produce a much more natural looking view block than a center board. And it doesn't have to be a complete view block - just enough to make the structures on the other side less obvious, same as in real life.
- Harry
HarryHotspur wrote:Just curious, but what program did you use to draw the plan? Thanks. - Harry
Just curious, but what program did you use to draw the plan? Thanks.
Looks like a promising start.
1. If you really want to have 3 trains going at once you'll need to modify the city area to not require the 3rd train to come out on the inner oval to go from the roundhouse lead to the industry lead.
2. That switchback will be a pain to deal with since using the run around will foul both of the main tracks.
3. Unless you're in love with the roundhouse and turntable perhaps a 3 track yard could use that space (with yard ops being that 3rd train)? Or run a short branchline around one end of the layout to the country side. Let it serve a grain elevator or mine or ?
4. Making the run around a bit longer will let you deal with longer trains.
5. If sectional track is what you're comfortable with, then by all means go ahead with it. But flex track will give you a lot more planning flexibility (and with fewer rail joints it should be a bit more reliable).
6. The idea of making the backdrop/divider curved or offesting it seems like something to look further at (to me anyway). It might allow some more interesting scenic opportunities.
7. Putting another cross over on the country side of the layout might allow for a bit more interesting operation.
Looks like you're going to have fun with this one.
And don't feel bad about the first layout not turning out the way you'd hoped. If we all waited until we had perfect track plans before building anything, nothing would ever get built.
When I had my 4x8 layout I made a bunch of 'tiles' by cutting 3/4" plastic I-beams into 1" long pieces. I labeled each piece with the name of an industry and stuck 'em in a small container. When I wanted to do freight switching I'd pull the freight train into town then pull tiles out of the container and set them on top of cars in the train. Then I'd deliver those cars to the industries the tiles said they should go to. If there was already a car at that industry I'd pick it up. After a while I got a bit more persnickety and if the tile for a tank car said it should go to the warehouse I'd start pulling more tiles until I found one for an industry the tank car would be appropriate for. Just a suggestion how you might do some easy 'operation'.
Good luck to you!
GraniteRailroader wrote:Hey Kevin - Chris up in Burlington... We spoke about your garden layout before. Have you thought about doing a "modular" layout? Yes, it would take time to setup, but you could do a shelf layout with additional "modules" that can be taken out when you want to run trains etc. Total setup time might only be ten or fifteen minutes and could be left up as long as you like, then taken down when you need the space again. I'll be coming down to the greater "Exit 7" area in a few weeks, probably next weekeend. I'd be glad to help you with a bit of planning and laying things out. There's a few local people with layouts, perhaps I can give them a call and see if we can stop by...
Hey Kevin - Chris up in Burlington... We spoke about your garden layout before.
Have you thought about doing a "modular" layout? Yes, it would take time to setup, but you could do a shelf layout with additional "modules" that can be taken out when you want to run trains etc. Total setup time might only be ten or fifteen minutes and could be left up as long as you like, then taken down when you need the space again.
I'll be coming down to the greater "Exit 7" area in a few weeks, probably next weekeend. I'd be glad to help you with a bit of planning and laying things out. There's a few local people with layouts, perhaps I can give them a call and see if we can stop by...
I'm just across the border, so if you come down this way, you can take a look at my 4x8 test layout.
Cheers
I'm trying to model 1956, not live in it.
on a completely different track (!) some of your buildings seem to be pretty small . if you haven't already done so you might consider buying some of the kits you're thinking of putting on the layout and checking their actual size . some manufacturers websites even have the size listed .
you don't want to lay all your track and then find out later that the buildings don't fit where you want them too
ernie
thanks mike. What I think I will do is play around with a 2'x4' laying flex and trying that idea out. something that will be temporary and practice.
ondrek wrote: anyone see a major problem with using sectional and soldering them? I had issues with flex and the process I used for laying, i ended up pinching a curve too tight somehow in my last layout. I was thinking of the sectionals in order to keep myself from having that kind of thing happen again. Kevin
anyone see a major problem with using sectional and soldering them? I had issues with flex and the process I used for laying, i ended up pinching a curve too tight somehow in my last layout. I was thinking of the sectionals in order to keep myself from having that kind of thing happen again.
What I do is solder the flex track as it lays straight and then I'll bend the curve and tack/glue down. If theres still a problem, use a small straight section in between the curved sections. That will definatly help on the kinking.
good luck
Mike
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements