Lynn:
wickmanI don't use longer than 50 foot cars
Don't forget about your locomotives. You have to base your vertical easements on the longest piece of rolling stock, including locomotives.
I don't think your second plan will do what you want. The connecting track goes in the same direction as the connecting track on the first reverse loop. Follow a theoretical train around the track to see what happens. The way you have the plan drawn you will still get stuck in one direction regardless of which reverse loop you use. The right side reverse loop connection has to go from the upper left to the lower right like you did in the first plan with two loops.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I did the elevations in the pprogram but can't seem to get them to show up on the plan to post on here. I did a couple other options for a reverse loop on the right side 2 versions. Input guys?
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174
I appreciate the extra set of eyes, good suggestions Guys.
Steve I will be cutting the corners back on the Blobs, helps with a nice smooth fascia. I need the the width on the walls for the mountains which the bases will probably come out 5 inches, so once completed the mountains will be like the walls.The Left wall will stay at 30" so not to take away from the isle width to the left of the Blob. I originally had the 57" x 31" section 62" and cut it back to the now 57" to give more isle room between the two blobs. I can't get to the right side for making a staging track as that is a solid wall, perhaps I didn't state that clearly in first post that there is 4 walls against the benchwork.
Steve I was thinking the same with the grade on the reverse loop and whether I need it or not, I will be doing the road bed on risers so it will be a matter of getting the east lower rail low enough to go under the outer elevated rail but I definately see your point and will take suggestions for another location for a reverse loop rail.
Thanks Dave for doing the math, I hate math. I think your pretty accurate in your accounting. I don't use longer than 50 foot cars so no issues there. I will know better for that reverse loop as I go. I tend to do quite a bit of tweeking with the rails once there on the risers.
Dave as per your second post, yes two reverse loops would be better and if there is a problem with the grade verses the reverse loop then the reverse loop will have to be relocated. I had this reverse loop two layouts back but I wasn't using this type of risers setup but did have quite the grade along that back left side.
You can see in this old layout plan I did from 2011 some simililarity's of the same area.
CentralGulf that is a very good suggestion, problem with XtrkCad is once you have done the plan you build the layout , I am getting reaquainted with the program again but will look up the elevations feature and repost. Back in 2011 I built the layout with plan posted above and did a lower level staging yard, it had a 2% grade to get down to it and the elevations feature was spot on when I did the benchwork to get down to the lower staging. Robert I agree 100% about having 2 reverse loops and haven't thrown that idea out yet, always room for changes. Floridaflyer it would be a great help if you posted your plan or edited mine in a paint program if you don't mind. I'm very interested in your two reverse loop ideas.
CentralGulf that is a very good suggestion, problem with XtrkCad is once you have done the plan you build the layout , I am getting reaquainted with the program again but will look up the elevations feature and repost. Back in 2011 I built the layout with plan posted above and did a lower level staging yard, it had a 2% grade to get down to it and the elevations feature was spot on when I did the benchwork to get down to the lower staging.
Robert I agree 100% about having 2 reverse loops and haven't thrown that idea out yet, always room for changes.
Floridaflyer it would be a great help if you posted your plan or edited mine in a paint program if you don't mind. I'm very interested in your two reverse loop ideas.
I have a right hand and a left hand reversing section like the fact that I can run trains in any direction I choose. By connecting the middle track to the outside track ( using left hand turnouts, or a curved turnout on the inside track with the tangent going to the outside track) on the right side of the layout you could have a second reversing. Grades would have to be considered and the length of the reversing section would have to be adjusted to compensate for any grade in the outside track
hon30critter Hi again Lynn: I just realized that there is one potentially problematic issue in your design. Since you only have one reverse loop you can only reverse the train once while going forward. If you want to reverse the train a second time the only way to do that would be to back the train through the short leg of the reverse loop. Dave
Hi again Lynn:
I just realized that there is one potentially problematic issue in your design. Since you only have one reverse loop you can only reverse the train once while going forward. If you want to reverse the train a second time the only way to do that would be to back the train through the short leg of the reverse loop.
Having only one directional reversing crossover may or may not be a problem. Personally, I'd prefer to have both a "right-hand" and a "left-hand" loop. Of course, the roundhouse solves the engine turning issues, but doesn't help turning entire trains.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Since you are using XTrkCad, I suggest you use the elevation feature, if you are not already doing so. Set the display options to show elevations on your published plan. That way forum members will have more information to work with.
I just realized that there is one potentially problematic issue in your design. Since you only have one reverse loop you can only reverse the train once while going forward. If you want to reverse the train a second time the only way to do that would be to back the train through the short leg of the reverse loop. In theory that isn't too much of a problem, but remember that the track will be sloped and you will be going through curves in the turnouts at the same time. Backing downhill will be less of a problem but going uphill could be tricky. You might have trouble with truck mounted couplers and rolling stock that is under weight, or even overweight if there are lighter cars between the heavy car and the locomotive. One way around the potential issue would be to use a rear end helper locomotive to 'pull' the train up the grade. I don't know how prototypical that would be but it would add some interesting operational aspects to the layout.
Hi Lynn:
I like the plan. If you haven't thought of it already I would suggest cutting the corners off of the loop benchwork, or using a curved fascia. That will prevent a lot of bruises from banging into the sharp corners.
According to my math (which could be wrong), if you use a maximum 2.5% grade on the reverse loop left side (short side) and a maximum 2.5% grade on the lower left track from the reverse loop turnout to the bridge, you should be able to get a little over 3.5" seperation between the tracks at the bridge but there are some significant limitations. That 3.5" clearance is assuming that the turnouts at both ends of the return loop connecting track are layed flat, and the vertical easements are 18" long to get to the 2.5% grade. An 18" vertical easement @ 2.5% is fine for short cars and locomotives but it isn't long enough for bigger rolling stock. If you want to run big, modern 6 axle diesels, 85' passenger cars, or 89' flat cars you will need a vertical easement of 30" (assuming a length of 12" per piece of rolling stock). A vertical easement of 30" will require a 3% grade to get 3.5" clearance between tracks. Here is a thread on the subject. Scroll down to the calculation post:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/216109.aspx
Like Steve said, it could be a bit tight unless you go to a steeper grade, but most rolling stock will pass through 3.5". You will have to watch caboose stacks, cranes etc.
reverse loop may cause a grade issue. I would just get rid of it. but not a deal breaker for me either.
Steve
Looks good. Widths are getting a little wide along the walls. I would recommend 30" MAX accept in the blob areas of course.
if you cut the corner off of the 48 X 52 blob, narrow the shelf on the back wall to 24", then you should be able to pull the 52x52 blob out into the center of the room for a longer run.
along the right side or back wall have the main line go behind a backdrop and add a couple hidden staging tracks.
I've been working on the new layout trackplan over the past couple months as time permits. I still have to add rails for structures. There will be Mountains arount the perimeter which is why the mainline outer rails are inward from the outside walls. I'm looking to do continuous run with passing sidings for a second train but also have an opportunity to try some industry switching. There is a rail that runs across the lower left leg which seems to work well for turning the train to the opposite direction I think works well.
I will be running the layout alone so not to worried about the isles or the reach to the back. As I said the back walls will be scenic mountains and once completed no reaching will be needed. I will be using automation via tortoise switches and Hares for autothrow on certain turnouts.
Thoughts , ideas and suggestions appreciated.