Hello experts,
I've planned a new HO layout and want to run it past the forum before purchasing parts and starting construction.
It is a branch line in a somewhat rural and hilly area in the northwest USA or southwest Canada. The year is around 1950. The area modelled has a mining industry, a small yard and service area for locos and cars, and a freight house for the nearby town. I want to jam in as much stuff as possible because I plan on using an Arduino to fully automate a bunch of tasks like sending trains to go load up at the industry, pick up cars at the yard, drive around somewhere else, etc. I know it doesn't leave much room for scenery but someday I'll have more space for that.
The space I have is approx 80"x60" so that it can fit underneath a queen size bed when not in use. The locos will be a mix of small steam and diesel, my largest being a GP7, and the cars are mostly 40' freight. So I'm content to use these 18" curves given the limited space.
Here's the plan:
http://imgur.com/a/IBjn2
The track highlighted in green is the through line. Most of the traffic comes and goes via the exit off the layout in the top right. That connects to whatever the nearest major rail lines are. On the layout plan it exits the 80x60 area and loops around to underground in the mine. The idea is that this bit of track is a separate detachable piece, not scenicked or anything, but is just there so that trains can appear to exit through the main green track without crashing to the floor.
The exit off the top left continues further along to something else less used, maybe another industry or town.
You'll note that many of the turnouts appear to sit on top of each other. To save precious space I plan on chopping off some of the straight sections leading into and out of turnouts where I think it won't adversely affect operation.
Feedback on everything please! Particularly including location of water sand and coal towers. Don't pull your punches, folks.
Hi speedybee:
Interesting plan. My first comment is that you have an 'S' curve in the lower part of the layout where there is a right hand switch leading into the area labelled "Industrial". I would suggest changing it to a left hand turnout and putting it further to the left on the curve so that the through route leads to the industrial tracks and the divergent route goes towards the yard ladder. You will have to change the angle of the industrial tracks slightly depending on where you put the turnout in the curve.
Another concern is the length of the yard lead. It would appear that you will only be able to handle one car at a time. That may result in a lot more switching of cars then would be necessary if the lead could handle two or three cars at a time. I'm not sure if you can extend the yard lead or not so you might have to live with the short lead.
Hope that makes sense.
Regards,
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Thanks! I've made some adjustments, the yard lead now extends into the clip-on area.
http://imgur.com/a/FqNFy
Speaking of S-curves, I notice there is another in the top left, for a train coming off the reverse loop from the bottom and going into the mine. I could solve that by flipping the turnout on the right vertically such that its straight track heads into the mine. But that would mean that a train coming along the green highlighted mainline would be entering the diverging end of a turnout, and I kinda liked how the mainline was going straight through all the turnouts and not diverging. I can lay that bit out first and test it to make sure that I don't get derailments. FWIW trains should be going very slowly there because there is a devilish gradient going down into the mine.
speedybeeSpeaking of S-curves, I notice there is another in the top left, for a train coming off the reverse loop from the bottom and going into the mine. I could solve that by flipping the turnout on the right vertically such that its straight track heads into the mine. But that would mean that a train coming along the green highlighted mainline would be entering the diverging end of a turnout, and I kinda liked how the mainline was going straight through all the turnouts and not diverging. I can lay that bit out first and test it to make sure that I don't get derailments. FWIW trains should be going very slowly there because there is a devilish gradient going down into the mine.
I agree with your plan. Like you said, the trains will be moving pretty slowly as they go through the 'S'. Most mine cars are pretty short too. You can reduce the potential effect of the 'S' by using a large turnout as well.
The other changes really improve the flow and function IMHO, not that I am an expert track planner.
One other thing I just noticed is that you have a turnout in a tunnel. I would make sure that the tunnel is easily removable. You could do it in sections so that one piece exposes the turnout area only and you are not trying to lift a huge tunnel every time you have a derailment at the switch. (Notice I didn't say "if").
Grades look very challenging (possibly unworkable), once you allow for transitions from level-to-grade and back -- and for the fact that changing grades within, or close to, a turnout diminishes reliability substantially. As you consider this, note how the grades on the mainline will affect the yard and ̶e̶n̶g̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶t̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ industry areas since the turnouts are so close together (which doesn't allow for running length for the grades to change).
If you are already OK with 18" radius curves, it appears that one could incorporate a similar schematic in 80"X60" without the "clip on" and without the grade.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
The grades are challenging indeed! But I've laid out flex track in a slightly steeper grade and slightly sharper curves than this, and my GP7 and S2 seem to negotiate it fine. The GP7 can pull around four unloaded cars up it and the s2 can pull one or two. But I know it's a brutal grade that many bigger locos would get stuck on. I have a 2-6-0 that I didnt test yet but I'm not optimistic about it.
The mainline, yard, and industry all have no grade or very slight grades... I don't think the plans I uploaded show grades but the only significant ones should be going down into and up out of the mine. If in the future I get a new loco that can't do the mine, at least it would still be able to run around everything else.
It'd be awesome to squeeze all this in without the clip on section. No matter how I tried I couldn't fit in a continuous running loop, a reverse loop, the yard and industry, and at least one mainline exit that went off the layout to represent the connection to the nearest class 1 road. I'm relatively new to layout planning so I know that just because I can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done
Sorry I just realised I didn't label this on the plan, but when I say "mine", I mean the half-loop of track on the right side of the plan that goes from the very top of the layout to the very bottom, passing beneath the mainline and yard lead
If you must have the reversing connection, then it probably cannot be fitted onto the 80"X60" alone.
If you did not allow for some length of track for each transition from level-to-grade, the actual length of the two grades may be shorter than you hope -- and thus steeper. Note that you need these transitions in four places as the "mine track" goes down, then levels (for at least a car length) then comes up again and levels. (Assuming, as you said, that all the other track is level above.)
Yes, I have eased into those grades... I split the track into 20cm sections, because that is the length of my longest equipment. The first section goes down at about a 2.5%, then the next at 5%, then around 7.5%, etc, then back to 5 and 2.5 and flat. Thank you for bringing it up though, as had I tried to go directly from flat into a 6% grade or whatever it would be, there would undoubtedly be disappointment
Edit: when I actually build the thing the grading easement, for lack of a better term, will be continuous not discrete. But the track planning software doesn't offer that option
speedybee:
You may want to have a look at the discussion of vertical easements in this thread. It explains how much distance is required to go from a flat track to a grade and it takes car length into account:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/216109.aspx
According to the calculation, for 20 cm cars you will need 50 cm (20") to transition from flat track to a 2.5% grade, or 150 cm (60") to transition from flat track to your maximum 7.5% grade. My rough calculations suggest that you only have about 120 cm (48") between the top left turnout and the underpass for the yard. However, I think that is the least of your problems. What you really need to look at is the length of your locomotives. If they are only 20 cm long then the math works, but I doubt that they will be only 20 cm long. They have to get through the transistions too. To add to the potential problems, all of the above calculations are based on straight track. Curves are another factor that will influence performance.
FWIW, I would heed Byron's concerns about the grades you are planning. I would suggest setting up a test track at a 7.5% grade and seeing if you can run your planned trains on it. Maybe make it even steeper to take into account the effect of the curves.
I'm sorry if this rains on your parade, but the laws of physics don't allow for adjustments.
Hey Byron:
I didn't even think about grades when I first looked at the trackplan.
As an aside, how did you post the actual picture of speedybee's track plan? I'm a dinosaur when it comes to doing these things so please explain in detail if you will.
Thanks
The locomotive is actually the only piece I have that is 20cm. The rest of my rolling stock is 40' cars that come in around 14cm.
Based on my admittedly limited testing, 50cm for a 2.5% grade is needlessly pessimistic for the equipment I have. But that's probably a safe calculation that could accommodate anything, whereas I'm happy with something that the stuff I currently own can manage.
The test track I've laid shows that the GP7 and S2 both (barely) manage to go straight into a 4% grade, and then once they've traveled their length they can hit an 8% grade, etc.
Re: max grade, the S2 pulling one empty car starting slipping at 12%. The GP7 was better and could pull three empty cars up that same slope. I don't go near 12% in the plan though, I think it caps out at around 8.5% on straight sections and 4% through curves. I will definitely do more thorough testing though before laying it all down for good though. But I accept that there will be no Big Boys steaming through here!
Ok, you are way ahead of my concerns and you are obviously doing your homework! That's good! I apologise if I sounded a little negative. I will watch your progress with interest.
Cheers!
No apology necessary! I very much appreciate hearing about concerns. I'd rather get negative feedback than positive, because it makes me think about potential problems and how to avoid them before the glue goes down
Based on my experience, that's overly optimistic on how quickly you can get into the grade and keep cars coupled to the engine. Note that it’s problematic to have the grade start too near a turnout. Best practice is to leave a one-car-length buffer, you may get by with less – but likely not zero.
Perhaps you will be able to make it work where others have had problems. Good luck.
hon30critterAs an aside, how did you post the actual picture of speedybee's track plan?
For Windows, right-click on the image (Command-click for Mac). Select "Copy Image Address" [this copies the image URL to your clipboard]
Then go to the MR Forum reply window. Click in the body of the reply where you want the image to appear. Then lick on the "insert/edit image" icon
This opens a dialog box
Your cursor will be in the "source" box, paste in the URL you copied earlier by pressing Control+V or (right-clicking and selecting "Paste"). The click "OK" and the image appears in the reply.
There are other ways, but I do this every time and it seems to always work for me (I'm using Windows 7 with Chrome or Firefox as the browser).
I'm kinda confused on this design. It doesn't work at all without the "clip on" (without the clip on the yard is inaccessible), so why design a horrible grade into it. Just do the clip on, eliminate the grade and have something that works.
If you have grades so steep that an engine can only handle 2 or 3 cars (if it can make it at all) and such tiny trains you won't be operating more than one engine at a time, why bother with a huge yard and service track area?
Take the loop without the clip on, flatten it so it has no grade. Where the switch is next to the freight housetake that inside track and run it inside the the outer loop to about the tunnel portal on the bottom. Put a smaller yard in the upper left corner. You can still do the reversing loop through the middle. You can use the outer track on the loop as a switching lead and a passing track/runaround. Put the service tracks in the area to the left of the reversing connection, put the mine in the area to the right of the reversing connection.
No clip on.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Here is what i am thinking of:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/haminahbob/Layout%20Construction/Bed_zpsk7mbbjay.jpg
Thanks, I'll play around in the layout software with something of that shape. I rather like the below grade underpass and seeing trains climb up and down slopes, but I might sacrifice that if it means I can do away with the clip on section
Byron:
Thanks for the explanation on how to copy pictures. I have been doing it from Photobucket for years but I never knew how to do it from other sources.
Dave H.'s sketch (above) looks so much like what I was picturing that I decided to draw it to scale to see if it would really work. Only 2" to spare all around, but it does just fit. Tightest turnouts are 18" radius SnapSwitches (as in the Original Poster's drawing) trimmed at the straight (not points) end. Also Atlas #4s (4½) for the yard, engine service, etc. Only for short equipment, but no clip-on or untenable grades.
Would it be possible to insert a curved turnout into the top of the center 'S' shaped track? That would allow the OP to have a small industrial spur running parallel to the service tracks. Maybe the radius is too tight, I can't tell.
hon30critterWould it be possible to insert a curved turnout into the top of the center 'S' shaped track?
I don't think so -- that's an 18" radius curve (and a SnapSwitch has an extra 1½" straight segment at the points end -- so it won't "drop in"). The limiting factor is keeping a decent straight section in the s-curve reversing connection. There would be room for one or two additional spurs on the “Mine” side of the reversing connection.
By the way, I may have been too aggressive in suggesting a 1" trim on the straight end of the SnapSwitches. ¾" is probably more realistic, with everything else adjusted accordingly. It will probably still just fit on the 80" X 60", but a skoche closer to the edges in a couple of spots.
cuyamaI don't think so -- that's an 18" radius curve
Hornby does make a Code 100 HO/OO curved turnout with an inner radius of 438 mm (17.5"):
http://modelrailwayimports.com/product.php?PID=2102&CID=10&BID=8&TID=0&SID=0&q=
Have you had any experience with Hornby track? Anybody?
hon30critterHornby does make a Code 100 HO/OO curved turnout with an inner radius of 438 mm (17.5"):
That's still not a perfect circular curve. With changes elsewhere, one might work something like that Hornby part into that curve. But when there are easier ways to add a spur or two elsewhere on the layout, I don’t know that it would be worth the effort.
You're welcome.