Would Enjoy Hearing Your Comments

[trainmasterg]

Hi.  This is Greg from Buffalo, NY.
I think your layout plans are awesome.  It's nice to see how much planning went into it.  I think your layout will work out just fine, regardless of turnout issues and radii.  Typically, once the building starts, thinks will change and evolve.
What would the layout be if you didn't plan at all, or even half as much?  I'm sure the results in that scenario wouldn't be nearly as nice.
The commentary and suggestions from everyone here are great too.
What an awesome forum.

[HHPATH56]

Hi Alan,(from another Michigander between Ann Arbor and Brighton.. The Sept.16 design of your proposed layout, is great. Technically,you have two wyes to reverse the direction of trains. I like the arrival and departure tracks on the center yard. Thank goodness, you have no duck-unders! Your layout lends itself to a set of smooth curves for your layout top. I,also, like the pass-over. I have several on my layout to hide the loops. Are you going for DCC from the beginning? Radio control would be nice, (if you can afford it). I have too many turnouts to make DCC controlled turnouts practical, but with your layout, that is the way to go, if you are operating the layout alone, (especially). One thing that you might consider, would be pull-out drawers, to allow access to hard to reach areas. The yard on the right will be a good place to store extra rolling stock. Can you lengthen and add more trackage to this yard? You might, also, include a RIP Loco and rolling stock set up in this area. Is this a two level yard? Looks great! Go for it! What access do you have on the lower left. Have you cut through the wall to get access to the lower left tunnel corner??? Bob Hahn [URL=http://s173.photobucket.com/albums/w78/ROBTAHahn/?action=view¤t=imghttpsawmill-3.jpg][/URL] The saw mill pond is a shallow kitchen pull-out drawer (with a lift-out to the rear, for access to hard to reach rear area). Darn it all! How does one use "More - Edit", and prevent the partial photo code from appearing ????

[lifeontheranch]

Byron,

I hold your opinion in the highest regards. Even though I painstakingly worked to make the plan turnouts feasible based on scale templates if you say it isn't right then who am I to question you. I will endeavor to recreate the plan in XTCad for your further review. Thank you.

[cuyama]

Unfortunately, there still appear to be unbuildable segments. While correct turnout angles are an important first step, one must also take into consideration the length of the point rails and the overall turnout length. In some areas, the turnouts still appear to be too close to one another to allow the arrangement to actually be built.

It is also out of balance to mix what appear to be #6 frogs with what appear to be 18" radius curves, such as in one of the yard ladders. (But I am trying to scale from the drawing, so I may not be seeing it correctly. Drawings with not-to-scale track components can be hard to interpret,)

If that is the case, there's no benefit in having such broad turnouts with such tight curves. Instead, better results are often found by matching the turnout number with the equivalent "Rail Closure Radius" for that frog number. (One may refer to the chart in John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation or to the NMRA RP-12.3 Recommended Practice for HO Turnouts for these values. It's line 11 in the NMRA chart. )

Once you have accurately accounted for some of these issues, I think you may be disappointed in the actual useable length of yard tracks after allowing for clearances through yard ladders and from track-to-track.  Note that curved turnouts are usually significantly longer than their straight counterparts and this will have an impact on the overall length required for a yard ladder if you use curved turnouts there.

Although I have seen advice given that "18 inch radius is fine for HO yard tracks", I find this often not to be the case when one is actually trying to shove a string of cars through a yard ladder and into yard tracks. A mix of car lengths (of even shorter cars, say, 34', 40', 50') can lead to a build-up of troublesome offset thrust forces through the couplers due to truck skew and friction through the curves. I have seen situations where it was made to work, but it's not the highest-percentage approach for a key operating location.

The operating pattern and traffic flow for the layout seem unclear to me, but you may have a good picture of how it would operate.

I recognize that you have already dismissed some of these same issues from others on multiple forums, so I won't  comment again. But I am always concerned to see an ambitious project off to a potentially troubled start.

Best of luck.

Byron

[lifeontheranch]

The LK&O site is down due to a power outage at BlueHost. Twitter saying 2-3 hours before restore.

http://twitter.com/#search?q=bluehost

[lifeontheranch]

Notice in the right lower corner of the drawing the two turnouts (magenta and blue)? Those are actual Walthers turnouts to scale. I used them overlaid onto the black track routes to verify the angle was darn close.

A full paper mockup is planned however I wish to shake down the plan as much as possible before I start.

I am especially interested in not so much the technical specifics of the track but more the functionality of the design. My ruler and computer allow me to work through the specs. I lack practical operating experience. Does the layout look enjoyable from a running trains by a couple of people viewpoint?

Thanks for looking,

[hon30critter]

One thing you could do to get a more accurate idea of turnout placement is to purchase 1 of each type of turnout you think you will use and make photocopies (you will need a scanner) of the turnouts so you can see how they will fit. You don't need to buy both left and right turnouts - just turn a left turnout upside down on the scanner to make a right. As one previous poster mentioned though, try to be sure that the track coming off your turnouts in the mock-up is lined up as straight as possible.

Dave

[lifeontheranch]

It has been nearly 3 weeks since I last asked you for your critique of the LK&O track plan. The information received was immensely helpful. Thank you. I've been real busy of late with things other than railroad but finally had an opportunity to make changes per your suggestions.

May I humbly ask for a second glance from you?

Complete details along with larger images are on the blog at http://www.lkorailroad.com/ on the About, G&D, and Track Plan tabs. Some of the major comments received earlier revolved around frog angles and helix vertical spacing. This latest version of the track plan has correct frog angles (#6 min) and sufficient helix clearance (4" min).

Good, bad or indifferent I would very much appreciate any comments you may have. Thank you in advance.

The track plan is here: http://www.lkorailroad.com/track-plan/

[lifeontheranch]

Thank you for the warm welcome. Indeed, we are neighbors.

Mr. Armstrong's book has been my bible. The pages are dog eared and the margins full of scribbled notes. What a fantastic reference.

I used to tease my wife about how many horse related publications she had amassed. Now she is gleefully giving me a dose of my own medicine! 

[HaroldA]

Welcome to the Forum!!  It's always great to see a fellow Michigander here and I suspect we don't live too far from one another - Flushing here.

I have always enjoyed the forums and gained some valuable information and insights from people who have already wrestled with some issues I have had.  Your plan looks great and know that as you proceed things will evolve even more.  If you don't have it, I would recommend you get a copy of John Armstrong's book Track Planning for realistic Operation.  It is a classic and contains some valuable information as you continue your planning. 

Best of luck and welcome!!

[lifeontheranch]

There have been numerous comments about the turnouts and radii used in Brittain yard. My lack of a good explanation early on is the reason for so many of these comments I am sure.

Please take a look at a full explanation on the LK&O blog track plan page. The text and illustration should clear up a lot of confusion.

Thanks,

[lifeontheranch]

 Early on I decided that I would not use long cars like auto racks and TOFC. While I like the looks of prototype they seem to require extremely generous curves to look appealing on a model railroad. At least in my eyes. Same opinion of passenger cars.

While this statement may sound contrary to current practice I don't care for the "train on a shelf" look either. Call me a throwback if you will but I like scenes with depth. By not using narrow shelf style construction my available space will not facilitate wide radius curves. Thus I was faced with a decision - long cars or deep scenes. I selected deep scenes.

Turnouts on the LK&O will be both DCC controlled and with switches on the valance in front of the area where the turnout is located. When walking the train I prefer to use the switches. When being lazy and operating from a stationary point DCC works.

While auto racks certainly were on the Flint Subdivision, I have no industry serving them and Lapeer is on the layout only in a small way. The loss of them at Lapeer is less of a distraction than the appearance of them in Brittain behind FM H16-44's.

Does all this make sense? Should I seek psychiatric help?

[CTValleyRR]

lifeontheranch

Need to facilitate oversize cars (auto racks) No long cars desired, look silly on my curves

Other
Turnouts w/wo decoder control Turnout control defined in G&D

These two items caught my interest.  If you're not running long cars, then 18" radius curves and #4 turnouts probably won't be a problem.  On the other hand, do you need to run autoracks to be realistic (or do you evencare about how realistic you are in that respect)?

Also, turnouts without decoder control are only a problem if you intend to use your DCC system to control turnouts.  The price of decoders being what it is, I only have some DCC decoders on my turnouts.  The ones I can reach easily from my control stand are hand-operated.  Again, only you can say whether this will be a problem for you.

[lifeontheranch]

This same response appears on several forums. I apologize for the redundancy but want same information shared amongst all that are so kindly helping me.

The windy city is a memory now I am back home. I'll be back in railroad design mode this evening but first want to thank everyone for their critique and comments of the proposed LK&O. I want to assure you none are taken with offense. Gladly accepting any and all comments be them love it or hate it or somewhere in between.

I have aggregated the comments received here and elsewhere as my "Needs Attention" list for this evening's work. I added a few comments to some. If you discover more items or have more improvement ideas I am all ears. I'll get to work on resolving these known issues and re-post an updated plan when finished.

One very important point is the track plan is merely a guide. It is not meant to be exact with respect to frog angles at this time. Some rearrangement of track is fully expected during the paper template layout session.

Benchwork
Use aisles 36-40” wide Aisles are minimum 36"
Build bench work in modules Already in G&D

Trackwork - Industries
Insufficient siding length to switch Goodyear complex
Goodyear complex spur grade too steep No grade at Goodyear spur
Goodyear complex turnouts too optimistic
Longer siding at Firestone
Train in tunnel when switching Mettiki mine Train cannot be visible behind Addition Alley
No runaround near mine
Mettiki mine own runaround too short to build trains
Use 22” minimum radius for industrial sidings
Trackwork - Yard
Brittain yard turnouts less than #4
Brittain yard curves too sharp
Need longer engine service track
Double slip bad at yard throat
Longer yard lead
Trackwork - General
18” curves are a problem
Split X crossing in Lapeer into separate turnouts
Go over not under river with Kitzmiller line Low bridge in place
Interchange track are too complicated
Staging track imbalance Staging tracks are balanced now

Access
Mettiki mine tracks out of reach
Sufficient access to Mettiki mine helix? Helix accessible from underneath, rear is open
Goodyear helix access Helix accessible from underneath
Goodyear track not accessible

Scenery
Hide helix with buildings?
Add gravel pit since is part of Brittain yard prototype
Scenery gap between Brittain and Lapeer too small
High track rounding Potomac river corner will cause scenery issue

Dimensional
Drawing not to scale Drawing is done to scale
Use turnout templates to physically lay out plan Planned, want paper as best as possible first
Insufficient helix clearance below Mettiki mine
Goodyear helix clearance issue
Need to facilitate oversize cars (auto racks) No long cars desired, look silly on my curves

Other
Turnouts w/wo decoder control Turnout control defined in G&D

 

[lifeontheranch]

 Thanks to all for the quick replies and generous comments. I will continue next weekend on this matter. Until then, thanks so much again.

[mobilman44]

Hi again!

I had some more thoughts I wanted to pass along to you.......

My current layout - under construction - is a rebuild of a 14 year old HO layout.  Its two level, and fills an 11x15 spare room.  The previous layout gave me a lot of experience, especially in what works and what doesn't. 

The biggest bugaboo (other than poor construction) in a lot of layouts is using too tight radius curves and small turnouts.  My current one uses # 8s for mains and sub-main, # 6s for loco terminal and tracks leading off the sub-main.  Number 4s are used only for some industrial sidings or yard tracks.

As I model postwar, I've got a number of Walthers full sized passenger cars.  So the trackage that they will use is 28 or above radius.  Note I had to install a long shank KD on one end of each passenger car to insure free wheeling around the curves.

Other curves are commensurate with the usage, with the smallest being 22 inch for industrial sidings.  This will easily accomodate 40-50 ft freight cars and the smaller switcher locos. 

What I am doing on this layout is the minimum radius/turnout that I feel will give me trouble free operation.  If I had the room, I would surely go larger.  My point is, you may want to consider what you have planned, for it could cause you a lot of disappointment over the life of the layout.

Gee, it sounds like I speak from experience, doesn't it?

ENJOY,

Mobilman44 

[tomikawaTT]

Howdy, Rancher,

Looks like a good basic scheme, but I did find a few pickies as well as a couple of attaboys.  The attaboys first:

1. Nice wide aisleways.  A couple or three folks my size could operate without conflict.
2. Good colliery track plan.
3. Generous radii, except for the yard.
4. Most trackage within the '2 feet from the fascia' reach limit.

 

And now the pickies:

1. IMHO, 18" is too sharp for a yard minimum radius, especially if you expect to run longer cars.  The right end of the yard, especially, looks AWFULLY tight!
2. I would extend the yard lead under the bridge and put a turnout against the wall where the curve ends.  By using a less-than-manline minimum radius, the tracks would balloon away from each other for good clearance.
3. Need a longer passing/local switching siding at Firestone Rubber.
4. I suggest splitting that X-crossover into two separate crossings, unless you just HAVE to have an X crossing
5. I presume you plan to have as many lower-level staging tracks as upper-level tracks.  As drawn, there's a considerable imbalance.
6. I assume that Goodyear Rubber covers (or is) a removeable access hatch.  Otherwise, the trackage in the middle of that 'blob' will be rather hard to reach.

 

And one final attaboy.  You realize that the scale drawing, like a battle plan, is unlikely to survive the first contact between the ties and the roadbed.  Were I you, I'd use those cardboard templates to mock up the right-hand yard end on a table (or a sheet of plywood on sawhorses) to see if it will really work as drawn.

All in all, a good plan for both running and operation.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[cuyama]

At a quick glance, it does not appear to me that your turnouts are accurate, both in terms of length and angle. For this reason, I would be concerned that significantly less might fit in that arrangement than you are anticipating.

This may also impact the useable length of your staging tracks, which already seem a bit short compared to the visible layout scenes, but that may be your choice.

If you have full-size turnout templates, you might try laying them out on the floor of the room for a complex area such as a yard ladder. Be sure that you are connecting squarely with curves and straight lengths to these templates, then see what will actually fit.

Best of luck.

Byron

 

[lifeontheranch]

 Bob Hahn - You are correct. HO, DCC, all Tortoise, CTC. The helices will be threaded rod open center style construction and only 2 turns so hoping minimum headaches with them. The centers of both will be wide open and accessible from below. Bench work minimum height is 44" so helices will be 44"-52" zone from floor.

The helix inside buildings idea I cannot take credit for. Another forum poster Flashwave suggested I do that and has worked through some of the engineering with me. Sharp dude!

[lifeontheranch]

 Mobilman44 - Thank you for your kind words. I have made a stack of shirt cardboard cutouts of Shinohara turnouts, wyes, diamonds, etc. 1:1 scale to use during the mock-up build. Since I am not using commercial track planning software it was more trouble than it was worth to build turnouts accurately in the drawing. The curves are scale radius however (30" min main, 24"min interchanges, 18"min yard and spur).

[HHPATH56]

Welcome to the Forums, Your drawing seems very reasonable., and buildable. I assume that this is HO scale, and will be DCC. Having a workbench will be very useful. The reverse loop hidden within a building is a great idea. I assume that you have access to the track within the building, and in your tunnels. Bob Hahn

[mobilman44]

Alan,

Welcome to the Forum!  Your computer work is outstanding, and hopefully you will be able to transfer that to a layout.  If your level of expertise carries over into the actual building of the layout, it will be something to behold!

My last two layouts had a lot of front end effort in them as well, but done with pencil and quadrille paper using turnout templates.  Of course the problem with the plans is often the fit of the turnouts.  Thankfully, drawing on the conservative side, I have found (so far) that my drawings work out just fine. 

I urge you to use the Forum to its fullest.  Whether to ask questions, show off your progress, and/or help out others, you will find the good folks on this Forum to be invaluable.  Trust me on this, for I know first hand.

Looking forward to seeing more!

Mobilman44  

[lifeontheranch]

Hi,

This is my first real post although I have been hanging around reading the forums for some time. I am building the LK&O railroad. You can see all the details at the LK&O blog including Givens & Druthers by which I came up with the track plan. The track plan design has been underway for some time and is nearing a point where I am close to doing a cardboard mock-up to see how I like the isle-ways, access, etc. Once the mock-up bench work is up I plan to roughly lay out the turnouts and track to see how everything fits. The drawing is to scale but will be used only as a guide. The final arrangement will be dictated by the fit during the mock-up.

I would enjoy hearing critique anyone may suggest before I start. The track plan is here. Thank you in advance.

Alan