Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Request for feedback on my track plan [UPDATED!]

4943 views
20 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 602 posts
Request for feedback on my track plan [UPDATED!]
Posted by NP01 on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:27 AM

Team,

Here's the plan for version 2 of my layout, construction should start next month. The space is 16 x 22' and I plan to make this a Nolix: climb starts on the left end of Tidmouth (+x.x symbols denote elevations). 

Note: the track in the lower left that crosses the entry door is climbing to the second level. By the time it gets to "Tidmouth" it should have gained about 11" elevation. 

Note that logically the line goes Knapford - Tidmouth - Maron - Maithwaite - (future upper deck). At Tidmouth there is a branch to Brendam, which has a port. 

Would really love feedback on this. Particularly I am worried i don't have enough staging (where?) and not enough space for scenery as everything feels narrow. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: North Dakota
  • 9,592 posts
Posted by BroadwayLion on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 6:47 AM

Not even a box above. You gotta keep trying. If the image is on google, click on the image there a few times until you get to the root photo. Then copy and past that location.

 

Just for fun... Google "GRS Model-5" and check out the images. Smile, Wink & Grin.

 

ROAR

The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.

Here there be cats.                                LIONS with CAMERAS

  • Member since
    June 2014
  • From: East Central Florida
  • 480 posts
Posted by Onewolf on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 7:07 AM

For posting photos on web message forums it's sometimes easiest just to host them on Photobucket/etc.

Modeling an HO gauge freelance version of the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line and the Utah Railway around 1957 in a world where Pirates from the Great Salt Lake founded Ogden, UT.

- Photo album of layout construction -

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 7:07 AM

 Can't embed a Google Drive file. Even if it's public, you have to have a Google account to see it. When I clicked on the box, it made me log in to my Google account, and then it showed.

                     --Randy


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    July 2015
  • 3 posts
Posted by ZFrench on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 8:03 AM

Hi there,

Know I think of my layout 8 X 4 that I was really proudof, and think of selling our house to buy a new one with a two car garage! Very impressive plan.

I want to add a 40" by 66" extension. The lower level will be used to park passenger trains, and the uper level maybe for an additional freight yard or else ...

Any advice would be appreciated.

Philippe

 

  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 223 posts
Posted by Choops on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 8:39 AM

you could add a staging track or two along the wall behind brendham. They would be basically passing sidings that run behind a back drop.

I like the plan so far.  Should work well.

Steve

Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 602 posts
Posted by NP01 on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 8:51 AM

Onewolf

For posting photos on web message forums it's sometimes easiest just to host them on Photobucket/etc.

Well, photobucket site is not cooperating! I can't fine the app I used in the past to upload images and although I have the image uploaded I can't seem to copy the IMG link. 

I will try again. 

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 602 posts
Posted by NP01 on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 8:55 AM

rrinker

 Can't embed a Google Drive file. Even if it's public, you have to have a Google account to see it. 

Ah. Well I will give up on that idea. 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,614 posts
Posted by dehusman on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:03 AM

I can open it from one of my computers but not the other.  Unfortunately I am on the "other" computer so I can't provide specifics.

It looked like you had a very heavily passenger oriented layout with the major passentger terminal on a branch off the junction.  That means you will have to back trains up the branch since I didn't see a way of turning them to return to the terminal once they left.

The small yard at the junction will be able to support one local at a time if that's the amount of industry work you had in mind.  If I were going to add staging, I would add it behind the passenger station, either raising the passenger branch  or putting an elevated city above the staging yard.  Probably could make the benchwork 6" wider and add 3 tracks for a thrugh freight in each direction (to move cars in and out of the local yard at the junction) plus maybe a coal or other unit train, or some sort of special train.

 

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 602 posts
Posted by NP01 on Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:32 AM

Choops: Great idea. I will design this in. 

Dehusman: Yep, you decoded it right, it is passenger themed! but does have a lot of cargo as we'll with agribusiness at Maron, Brendham docks , a food products factory at Knapford, another factory at Maithwaite and a large industrial yard on the upper deck. So it should work both ways. 

The main terminal (Knapford) is not on a branch, I think my updated explanation is better. 

EmbarrassedHopefully now I will get more comments!!! 

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: lavale, md
  • 4,640 posts
Posted by gregc on Sunday, August 2, 2015 7:31 PM

I suggest you read Tony Koester's book on Multi-deck model railroad.  It looks like he addresses many of the issues you'll have to face.   My comments are based on this book.

won't it be difficult to follow a train from Maitwaite to Brendam because of the curved trestle is in the way.

There's a lot of open space in the middle of the room.   It looks like the pennisula with Knapford could have a loop at the end so that tracks are on both side.

if you could attach the pennisula to to wall on the left side, instead of the right, the track could follow a path down the left wall halfway, out along one side of the pennisula, back along the other side of the pennisula, and then back the left wall and continue counter-clockwise.

The pennisula could be multi-deck.   This would not only lengthen the track plan, but also allow an operator to follow a train around the layout without having the curved trestle in the way.

Tony comments that siding require flat areas to avoid spotted cars  from rolling.  For example, the elevation at Maron should be 5" at both ends of the sidings.

you'll also need to determine if there's enough length with the flat areas at sidings to achieve the height differences for a multi-deck layout, including the thickness of the desk.

Tony was mostly concerned with running trains.  He was more interested in having station sidings that trains met than having larger industries that needed to be switched.   He only modeled the 100' (foot and a half) around the track which required minimal scenery and makes the point that building a multi-deck layout is very much like building two layouts.

Tony also describes how he routed tracks around appliances like your water heater.

 get the book

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 602 posts
Posted by NP01 on Monday, August 3, 2015 12:26 AM

Thank you so much for your detailed critique! I have read Tony's book a while back, but not recently. I will find it.

gregc

Won't it be difficult to follow a train from Maitwaite to Brendam because of the curved trestle is in the way.

Valid point. Although train leaving Maithwaite to the right and up (in the image) will be 12" above and on the upper deck. Still the same issue you point out.

gregc

There's a lot of open space in the middle of the room.   It looks like the pennisula with Knapford could have a loop at the end so that tracks are on both side.

Negotiations have resulted in a large central area to be preserved for kids to play, or seating. I am happy I have this much!

gregc

if you could attach the pennisula to to wall on the left side, instead of the right, the track could follow a path down the left wall halfway, out along one side of the pennisula, back along the other side of the pennisula, and then back the left wall and continue counter-clockwise.

This is a good idea. It might eliminate the trestle. I don't really like the location of the trestle as it blocks off a path into the room. I will think about this ... I will need to route a loop (min 5'6" diameter) to turn around. 

gregc

Tony comments that siding require flat areas to avoid spotted cars  from rolling.  For example, the elevation at Maron should be 5" at both ends of the sidings.

This is the plan ... I did not label it, but the track starts climbing again after the switch at Maron.

gregc

you'll also need to determine if there's enough length with the flat areas at sidings to achieve the height differences for a multi-deck layout, including the thickness of the desk.

I did the math on this based on 2-2.5% grade and it gives me a minimum separation of 11.7" ... this minimum is in an area where the top deck is a single track main (6" wide!) so will result in minimal obscuration of Tidmouth Yard below.

gregc

Tony was mostly concerned with running trains.  He was more interested in having station sidings that trains met than having larger industries that needed to be switched.   He only modeled the 100' (foot and a half) around the track which required minimal scenery and makes the point that building a multi-deck layout is very much like building two layouts.

I think this layout is going to be similar. In fact, I might cut some of the structures and attach to backdrop to make the width work.

gregc

 get the book

 

 
OK! OK!! Ordering it now.
 
Again, thank you so much. I will post a second version soon.
 
NP.
  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: lavale, md
  • 4,640 posts
Posted by gregc on Monday, August 3, 2015 4:39 AM

NP01
I did the math on this based on 2-2.5% grade and it gives me a minimum separation of 11.7" ... this minimum is in an area where the top deck is a single track main (6" wide!) so will result in minimal obscuration of Tidmouth Yard below.

how thick is the upper deck?

if your track height separate is 12" and the deck is 3", there's only 9" between the lower and the bottom of the upper deck.

you may need to mount switch machines as well as lighting.   You'll want to be able to see the lower deck while standing

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 602 posts
Posted by NP01 on Monday, August 3, 2015 8:05 AM

I will make the upper deck 0.5-1" thick in this area and this portion will not have any switch machines. Another approx 12 feet (3" height gain) later, I will go to "normal" bench work. I may have to mounta a couple switches on top (Disguised inside buildings) to make this work. 

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Dearborn Heights, Michigan
  • 364 posts
Posted by delray1967 on Monday, August 10, 2015 6:58 AM

Neat idea for a layout! Even though I consider myself a prototypical modeler, I think the Thomas series is great! Will this be a Great Britain railroad or will you be running American stuff? What railroad? Either way, it looks like a decent plan. It would be better to be able to follow a train along as it went around the room, but you could duck under the trestle or simple stop the train, walk around the peninsula and then continue to run the train...it'll give that 'standing by the tracks, waiting for the train' feel. I only see the one plan (in your original post), is this the updated plan? Is there anyway to build a peninsula over the yard so you could follow the train? Sorry if you already addressed this issue, I can't remember everything I just read whe writing this.lol

Cheers! I look forward to a thorough photo documentation of the planning, construction and running of the layout...who knows, you just might get a mini series out of it! Hahaa

http://delray1967.shutterfly.com/pictures/5

SEMI Free-Mo@groups.io

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • 83 posts
Posted by theodorefisk on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 9:35 PM

Hi, the layout is visible to me and looks great. My only thought, from what I can see, is that you have many yards, but no industry to serve from those yards. 

 

Ted

  • Member since
    August 2015
  • 13 posts
Posted by Canadianknight on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:53 PM
I'd agree with Ted's post... there seem to be a lot of yards?
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 602 posts
Posted by NP01 on Wednesday, August 12, 2015 6:28 PM

Delray- Thank you for the kind comments. The track at the basement entry does not form a continuous loop, it goes above Tidmouth (gains 12" going around the room once.) As such the first pass on the lower level should work ok for following around if one starated on the inside at Knapford. For the second level- you are right. But I think it's OK because I might not get to the second level in this lifetime. It's a compromise I am aware of after yours and a couple other comments. 

I will run American contemporary equipment, but use words like "railway", "signal box" etc to evoke some British charm.

Ted and CanadianKnight- actually a lot are stations- Knapford, Tidmouth, Brendam, Maron, Maithwaite. Attached to Tidmouth is a classification/staging yard and engine service facility. Next to Brendam is a port. Maron will actually be a single platform station with farm industries (elevator and fruit loading) on the two tracks. Maithwaite station have two spurs for a factory of some kind and Culdee fell is a logging branch line. Not labelled sorry ... 

I am updating based on all the input and will post a new one tonight.

thanks again! 

 

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 602 posts
Posted by NP01 on Wednesday, August 12, 2015 10:34 PM

Now updated with simplified vertical alignments and longer yard tracks, better labeling.

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: lavale, md
  • 4,640 posts
Posted by gregc on Thursday, August 13, 2015 5:05 AM

shouldn't the height at either end of any track where you expect to spot cars be the same?  otherwise the cars are like to roll.

the bottom end of Maron should be 5" and the left side of maitwaite is 8.24".  The curve between them looks about 30", making the distance ~45".   I figure that to be a 7% grade (3.24" / 45").

 

 

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 602 posts
Posted by NP01 on Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:55 PM

gregc

I figure that to be a 7% grade (3.24" / 45").

 Indifferent It is actually spread across the curve (47") and section after it (60") for 3.24/104 and turns out to be 3%. I am not happy with it still and trying to optimize a little to make it a little lower. 

My prior layout slowly grew and evolved and I really did not run many operations because kids are too small. So I would love to get some ops oriented comments too.

I plan mixed ops, given there are many industries (6 on first level) and many stations (5), I could generate a lot of traffic, but servicing industries, staging, etc. are all concerns. I don't want to create an op plan prior to building ... it becomes too much armchair.

NP.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!