Ok...You can't copy & Paste a Paint doagram. I'll try to post it on photo bucket and provide a link.
Please try this: http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k243/gntrainman/layout%20v3_zpskj3kdqtr.png
Here is an idea for modifying the yard eliminating most of the S curves.
skagitrailbird Moving the curved turnout to the original location will almost certainly require remote control unless the operator has access around the entire layout.
Moving the curved turnout to the original location will almost certainly require remote control unless the operator has access around the entire layout.
skagitrailbird is 100% correct. Put a turnout motor on that one at least.
Even if you have access to the back side install a remote machine on that turnout. My layout is also 96" wide (4') with turnouts on the back side. I too thought I'd want to actively run the railroad by hand throwing the turnouts. It didn't take long to get tired of having to run to those turnouts when operating the trains. Even just having one to deal with will soon become a pain.
Good luck
Bob
Don't Ever Give Up
I agree with Tom. I'd put the curved turnout back where you originally had it.
Then I would use a second curved turnout on the inside track somewhere to the left of the road to start the yard. Even with a 24 inch outer radius, I think you can sneak a second curved turnout in the inside track if you use flex track and/or adjust the radius of the inside track along the curve.
- Douglas
At this point, my only real quibble has to do with your original question, the curved turnout. I'd suggest leaving it where you originally put it so that you can keep the longer passing track.
I'd install the yard tracks with the expectation that they will be changed as experience dictates. In other words, don't glue them or scenic the area until after a breakin period. Practical experience will tell you what changes are needed.
Additional sidings can be added wherever needed, as the need and inspiration come to you.
Good luck!
Tom
Huge improvement! I will second what peahrens sez about the s curves. Putting your buildings and orange grove at an angle like you did will make your layout look a bit larger and more realistic. Keep us posted! Dan
I see your plan update above is just a link so I'll try to add it with the Photobucket image appearing in the thread:
I like the layout overall. My eye was drawn to the lower right yard area, where there are 3 or so "S" curve routes through the various turnout settings. You might want to examine that and see if you want to optimize that. Certainly a consideration if one were to run 85' passenger cars but less so with shorter rolling stock and moderate size locos. Some ot this is also visual, a realism thing. Others can comment on the extent of s-curves on real RR's. Anyway, consider some tweaking there, for example, using some higher # turnouts and/or laddering them differently (right vs. left hand). There would be a tradeoff between higher number turnouts and spur length. You can also reduce the length of manufactured turnouts in most cases to an extent by trimming of some rail and ties (but not beyond any underneath electrical jumpers. Something to consider. You've done a nice job of keeping it simple by not cramming in too much track. In my case, I'd be tempted to add a turnout at the upper right and run a spur down toward the lower left, above the road. Anyway, it looks like you're doing very nice homework. Getting close to time to head to the lumber yard!
I like the layout overall. My eye was drawn to the lower right yard area, where there are 3 or so "S" curve routes through the various turnout settings. You might want to examine that and see if you want to optimize that. Certainly a consideration if one were to run 85' passenger cars but less so with shorter rolling stock and moderate size locos. Some ot this is also visual, a realism thing. Others can comment on the extent of s-curves on real RR's. Anyway, consider some tweaking there, for example, using some higher # turnouts and/or laddering them differently (right vs. left hand). There would be a tradeoff between higher number turnouts and spur length. You can also reduce the length of manufactured turnouts in most cases to an extent by trimming of some rail and ties (but not beyond any underneath electrical jumpers. Something to consider.
You've done a nice job of keeping it simple by not cramming in too much track. In my case, I'd be tempted to add a turnout at the upper right and run a spur down toward the lower left, above the road.
Anyway, it looks like you're doing very nice homework. Getting close to time to head to the lumber yard!
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
SantaFeBlock What’s the general consensus on Bullfrog Switch Controls? I’m not huge on the idea of electronically controlling everything. I need some hands on stuff. Thank you all again, any feedback is welcome! J.
I have no experience with Bullfrog controls, but you should consider Hump Yard Purveyance controls. I have several that work well.
Dante
I will add, regarding the original question, using curved turnouts are a great way to get more usable space out of a layout, and they look neat too. Our responses are not to discourage you, but to help you get off to a successful start. Keep us posted on what you do come up with. Dan
SouthgateThere won't be room to lay the switches that look like crossings in the industrial looking part on your diagram. You can't actually lay them that way regardless of space.
Double-slip switches would work. However, I agree that the track arangement should be changed. It doesn't make any sense operationally. What is the purpose of the tracks in the middle?
Double-slip switches are rare on the prototype. I've never heard of any in industrial areas. They are most often used at the entrance to passener facilities (usually where two or more tracks need access to multiple passenger platforms) where space is tight. They are more common in England and Europe than in the US and Canada.
On model railroads the are sometimes used at freight yard entrances or in staging to reduce the overall length.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Welcome aboard. I think you need to rethink your sidings on the lower portion of your plan. What may look like will work on a diagram schematic can prove otherwise in actuality. (been there myself!)
There won't be room to lay the switches that look like crossings in the industrial looking part on your diagram. You can't actually lay them that way regardless of space. See if you can get proportional track templates or actual switches to lay out your track design. That can save you a lot of frusteration and even money when it comes time to build. Just a friendly heads up. Dan
Aren't these identical threads?
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/249155.aspx
Alton Junction
Yep, in this case, the Walthers Shinohara #6-1/2 curved turnout is your friend.
Rich
I;ve had good results with the peco turnouts.
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174