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!

Design a dbl-deck layout for installation in its own Hand-House shed

20947 views
99 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, March 8, 2019 8:33 AM

Steve Sweeney

OK. I'm curious. Have you done anything more on this? -Steve

 

I eventually decided (thru many postings on several forums) that my radii turns on several of the loops was going to be a little too much for many of my steam engines,...so I began to look at alternatives.

This is the next layout that inspired me,...
Tupper Lake
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx#3005127

progressing to
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx?page=6

 

So I am building this now, and I have resorted to full size paper templates/plans,..
Full Size Paper Templates of Trackplan
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/273575.aspx

 

 

Moderator
  • Member since
    April 2013
  • 178 posts
Posted by Steve Sweeney on Thursday, March 7, 2019 3:43 PM

OK. I'm curious. Have you done anything more on this? -Steve

Steve Sweeney
Digital Editor, Hobby 

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, November 5, 2017 2:29 PM

Another Track Plan Consideration

Its been a while since I posted to this subject thread, but I wanted to let folks know that I have NOT totally abandoned this trackplan idea.

Its just that I found another interesting trackplan that I wanted to spend time investigating prior to making a decision as to which one to build. I started a new subject thread on that other plan so as to not confuse matters by mixing the 2 up.

Interesting Plan, Tupper Lake & Faust Junction
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/3004238/reply.aspx
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx#3005127

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, October 13, 2017 10:56 AM

Staging Tracks

 

Forgive this depiction as the tracks are upside down from what I intend. This illustrates the width available for 4 tracks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I have found a way to add more staging tracks,...maybe 8. Simply add another one of those square sectioned alum beams to the wall bracket at a lower level,...

 

 

 

 

 

The use of this metal beam substructure results in a staging area that is not as far under the surface of the lower deck roadbed, thus it might climb to that upper level with less grade, and perhaps without a helix?

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, October 13, 2017 10:50 AM

Lower Deck/Shelf of my Layout

Here is an interesting illustration of what I have in mind, except this example utilizes wood extensions added to the wall brackets.

 

 

 

 

 

I like the really clean look of this arrangement, and the lack of big thick wood framing structure one might have if utilizing L-girder. or open grid, or cookie cutter support of that shelf.

 

Well one ask, how about attaching the risers to this arrangement? I reply, can't the risers be fashioned of foam blocks, or similar 'blocking' to attain the heights of tracks desired? And can't the depressions be cut out of the flat plywood (or foam) deck where desired. Its all be done in foam board construction.

 

Since my lower deck/shelves are considerable 'wider/deeper' in some areas, I want to replace those wood beam extensions shown above with metal beams,...attached to my wall brackets. The choice of the metal extension beam will depend on the depth of the shelf at any particular location. I think I would choose this angle iron for the very large width areas under the two loops at the entrance, and perhaps under the peninsula loop.....

 

 
As the deck/shelf narrows down I would chose these alum square tubes (probably the white colored ones since they are of a greater wall thickness....(probably only need single tube, rather than 2 side by side, as it is quite strong)

 

For this lower level my subroadbed will likely be a good quality 1/2" thick plywood firmly attached to those alum beams,...such as to decrease its chance of warping, and to add a 'skin like' support to the whole structure of 'beam & skin'.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, October 12, 2017 1:18 PM

railandsail

You are correct that is a 'Y' turnout I put in there,...mainly to try and turn the ladder a bit more to the right. In reality I may not need to do that on the actually layout. I will discover more about this when I try laying out the paper templates (and/or actual) turnouts on my full size cardboard mock-ups.

 

Updated Track Plan for loop and freight yard entrance

Before I take this cardboard mock-up down in order to install the 'masonite' wall coverings, I figured I would do an update on the double track loops I now want around the turntable area, and a little more accurate model of the turnouts leading into the freight yard.

 

 

 

 

(I eliminated the dbl 'Y' I had in the first edition, and included a second dbl-slip down at the end for that last combo turnout)

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, October 9, 2017 9:53 AM

Metal Benchwork

I intend to utilize some form of metal benchwork to support my subroadbed, whether it be foam sheet or plywood, or combo of the two.

I started a separate discussion on that over here:

Metal Benchwork
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/265524.aspx

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, October 8, 2017 8:02 AM

You are correct that is a 'Y' turnout I put in there,...mainly to try and turn the ladder a bit more to the right. In reality I may not need to do that on the actually layout. I will discover more about this when I try laying out the paper templates (and/or actual) turnouts on my full size cardboard mock-ups.

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • From: various locations
  • 2,191 posts
Posted by BMMECNYC on Saturday, October 7, 2017 10:21 PM

railandsail
(It seems as though my posted pics and dwg have been edited down in width such that they are distorted. Can you extract a full size dwg??)

When you click reply they go back to normal size, also clicking and opening in a new window allows viewing normally.  

Is the third turnout up the ladder on the first photo a Peco 24" radius Y turnout?  If so that will create an s-curve that you may find problematic (I dont remember what size equipment you said you were running).   If you have one I would consider a PECO short turnout LH (also nominal 24" radius) in that location instead.

Rule 108: In case of doubt or uncertainty, the safe course must be taken.

https://www.facebook.com/elkcreekloggingcompany/

https://www.facebook.com/SilvertonLakeCityandNorthern/

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, October 5, 2017 9:03 PM

Turn Outs, Templates, Updated Layout Dwg

I found many of my turnouts from my stowage trailer,...all but my Peco ones. I also discovered some full scale templates for Peco turnouts. As you might see I have a large number of very nice Fleischmann Pro-Track ones

 

Thought I would run a quick experiment to see if I could duplicated one portion of my layout design with actual turnouts I had in stock. Updated the layout dwg first , with some scaling lines(boxes),....each box represents 1 foot (12 inches) in full size.

 

And here are a couple of examples of the entrance tracks to the freight yard.

(BTW, that piece of plywood they are laid out on is only about 3 feet wide, rather than the 53" I have on the layout dwg).

 

 

 

 

(It seems as though my posted pics and dwg have been edited down in width such that they are distorted. Can you extract a full size dwg??)

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, October 2, 2017 9:00 PM

rrinker

Any chance you can upgrade the shed to the next size? 14' of width instead of 12' will allow sections of 18" wide benchwork to pass by a 60" penninsula blob, enough for at least 27" radius turnback curves, and still have 3' aisles on either side.

                                --Randy


How I wish. I had to move all 5 of my carport supports out 1 foot to get that 12 foot shed in. No way I could have done more.

 

 

Pretty tight fit as it was. You can see some of the new footers I had to pour for the carpost columns.

The good thing about being mostly under the carport roof is that the shed is reasonable cool inside,...along with a thorough insulation job, a ceiling fan, and an AC unit that is not shown in these early photos.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, October 2, 2017 8:52 PM

GraniteRailroader

Can you post one of your drawings with what you feel are your measurements

With so few measurements in the latest version its nearly impossible to judge what the benchwork size is without having to guess or extrapolate rough sizes based on other elements.

I'll do that in the next day or so. Tomorrow I have to go get some stuff I will be using to build the layout. And I have to spend some time on some flooding we have around here do to recent rain from hurricane, then 2 more days of heavy rain. Grow is saturated. Our street is like a river.

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 27,713 posts
Posted by rrinker on Monday, October 2, 2017 4:29 PM

 Any chance you can upgrade the shed to the next size? 14' of width instead of 12' will allow sections of 18" wide benchwork to pass by a 60" penninsula blob, enough for at least 27" radius turnback curves, and still have 3' aisles on either side.

                                --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
    November 2006
  • From: Northeast
  • 731 posts
Posted by GraniteRailroader on Monday, October 2, 2017 1:11 PM


First off that drawing by GraniteRailroader is not accurate with my latest shelf dimensions. Shelf/deck will be considerable wider/deeper at its midpoint

Can you post one of your drawings with what you feel are your measurements?

With so few measurements in the latest version its nearly impossible to judge what the benchwork size is without having to guess or extrapolate rough sizes based on other elements.

This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, October 2, 2017 8:30 AM

 

trainnut1250..."In addition, the area in the loop is pretty tight for HO. You will have to do all kinds of contortions to fit some track in the loops that works convincingly from a scenic point of view."

 

I did fit quite a bit into this relatively small loop on my old Atlas 'central midland' layout.
http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/31007

 

 
 
  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, October 2, 2017 8:13 AM

trainnut1250
I’m not sure that your last post with photos makes your case. That scene is huge. It is at least 25’ long to my eye. If the point is the building flats - that is just rearranging deck chairs. As Randy points out, you don’t get enough width savings to matter...


Those photos were only meant to depict the 'flatness' that the city scene could be made. I'm guess mine will be all of 6" deep off the backdrop, and will be approx 1/2 to 1/3 the length of that 15' foot sidewall. BTW I can NOT fit in a full roundhouse, and do not see why I should. I will just use the front face of the roundhouse and perhaps 2-3" inches of its front face. The remainder will be somehow painted into the background.

 

trainnut1250
Let’s look at the above diagram to see if I can make my point. We are looking at the amount of available space for a scene.

 

As it is in the drawing: Start by driving your imaginary train along the back wall of the scene towards the blob end of the bench work. After you make the run around the loop, it takes 8’ feet of run to come back to straight (add in the necessary curve to bring it back to parallel 

The loops cause one other design constraint- they force the track on the back wall all the way to the back edge of the scene and they force the front track all the way to the front edge around the blob. Also notice how the front track limits your possibilities by defining the front edge with a train track. In addition, the area in the loop is pretty tight for HO. You will have to do all kinds of contortions to fit some track in the loops that works convincingly from a scenic point of view.


First off that drawing by GraniteRailroader is not accurate with my latest shelf dimensions. Shelf/deck will be considerable wider/deeper at its midpoint. 

 

 

trainnut1250
At this point I don’t want to be discouraging to you. I am trying to help out. I feel that you would have a more successful layout that would be fun to build and operate if you come to grips with your space limitations. I don’t want to push too hard, just want to make sure that you have heard from all sides and that those watching this thread understand the issues with the space you have and the design you are choosing.

My two cents,

Guy


I try to be appreciative of all suggestions, even while resisting some. BTW i am going to reconsider that second inside loop of track around the turntable.

 

And in support of my loops,... look what these computer track plans came up with.....

 

 

 

 

...an early sketch I had made (each of those square blocks on the graph paper is 3" inches)

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 1,240 posts
Posted by trainnut1250 on Sunday, October 1, 2017 10:51 PM

railandsail
 
GraniteRailroader

Spent fifteen minutes in XtrakCad to do this real quick...

 

 

 

 

 

railandsail
 

 

 

 

 

I’m not sure that your last post with photos makes your case. That scene is huge. It is at least 25’ long to my eye. If the point is the building flats - that is just rearranging deck chairs. As Randy points out, you don’t get enough width savings to matter...

 

Let’s look at the above diagram to see if I can make my point. We are looking at the amount of available space for a scene.

 

As it is in the drawing: Start by driving your imaginary train along the back wall of the scene towards the blob end of the bench work. After you make the run around the loop, it takes 8’ feet of run to come back to straight (add in the necessary curve to bring it back to parallel with the layout edge). Now you run in a scene for roughly four feet before you have to start the curves on the other end of the bench work to get back to go around the room.

 

The scene length without curves is roughly four feet, not a very large scene. Basically the whole wall is the loop with a small straight section. This is great if you want to model loops. The reason the Tonopah plan works is because there is an 18’ run on straight after the loops. Your plan/s can’t shrink the loop that much so to make it fit, so the straight has to be significantly shortened, making the scene a big loop.

 

The loops cause one other design constraint- they force the track on the back wall all the way to the back edge of the scene and they force the front track all the way to the front edge around the blob. Also notice how the front track limits your possibilities by defining the front edge with a train track. In addition, the area in the loop is pretty tight for HO. You will have to do all kinds of contortions to fit some track in the loops that works convincingly from a scenic point of view.

 

Now lose the blob and loop. Drive your train towards the blob. You see that you will have 11 feet to build a scene before you hit the turn to go across the doorway. Much more room to do something cool. No front track to define the scene, no loop to further constrain the design. You can move the main track to the center of the scene, to the back, to the front – it doesn’t matter....

 

At this point I don’t want to be discouraging to you. I am trying to help out. I feel that you would have a more successful layout that would be fun to build and operate if you come to grips with your space limitations. I don’t want to push too hard, just want to make sure that you have heard from all sides and that those watching this thread understand the issues with the space you have and the design you are choosing.

My two cents,

 

Guy

 

see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, October 1, 2017 8:47 PM

I had no plans on 'reducing' that LP&T track plan down so it could fit into my shed. Rather I was interested on borrowing some ideas from it, ie the city, turntable, yard scene. My city scene would likely be 1/8 as deep as that one on LP&T, plus the reduction in the yard width.

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 27,713 posts
Posted by rrinker on Sunday, October 1, 2017 4:39 PM

 The thing is, the LP&T has 6 feet more width than you doo. That's tough to overcome just by splitting out 2 or 3 yard tracks - that doesn't even reduce things by 6 inches.

                     --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
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, October 1, 2017 3:22 PM

Thin City Backdrop
Not the reference material I saved from long time ago (haven't found that yet), but something I just found today that will come in handy as I will be using this thin hardboard as a backdrop all around my layout

http://www.sumidacrossing.org/LayoutConstruction/BackdropConstruction/

...and this
http://www.pghtrainfanatic.com/index.php/store/building-flats/

 

...or these

 

 

 

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 1,240 posts
Posted by trainnut1250 on Sunday, October 1, 2017 11:51 AM

railandsail

 

 
trainnut1250
.....

The two turn back loops don’t fit tin the space easily. They make your scenes along the walls too short. Loops are hard to scenic and they limit your possibilities – for example, your TT and tracks won’t fit in the space you have put them (you will see this when you draw the design accurately)

My two cents,

Guy

 

 

Did you see this ealier posting of mine?

Lone Pine & Tonopah

I spoke previously of 2 layout plans that were very interesting to me to review in my effort to arrive at a combo of two. That second layout was the Lone Pine & Tonopah. The dwg I have on file came from a Nov 1993 issue of Model Railroader mag. I believe he has since made a number of changes to this original design.

Lone_Pine_amp_Tonopah_RR_750.jpg

No matter, as I would seek to make a number of changes as well to it in order for it to scale down to fit my shed. Its more the concept I would be looking at. I have mentioned that I might be looking at the Balt/east coast theme for the lower level of my layout. With that in mind I would be interested in that roundhouse scene and city backdrop being located somewhat similar on that right hand side 'blob' of my layout as one enters the layout. I have a goodly number of real nice steam engines I would like to be 'on display' in that roundtable scene (with more on the outdoor tracks than inside any roundhouse). I had a similar 'display of steam' on my old Central Midland layout.

I figure my lower level in that area would have to neck down much more to give aisle clearance. So my railyard tracks would have to be perhaps half in number to those he has. And my city backdrop would have to be just a single layer of very thinly sectioned buildings, and a good painted backdrop. I would still like to have that circular mainline going around the roundtable facility and 'under' the city. I would also like to have that mainline join with the one that would cross the shed's door opening via a nice lift-out bridge (Chesapeake Bay Bridge or whatever).

Turntable_City_Freight_Yard_side_of_layout.jpg

q

 

yes I saw this... I've also seen all the other iterations to try and fit this plan into your space... IMHO - they don't work because your space is too small. the tonopah layout is designed for a 500 sq ft space that is 18.5 feet across... it won't fit into a space that is 196 sq ft and only 12 feet across Your space is so much smaller (less than half) that maybe you should be looking at other options - like around the room no loops.

You do have the space for a nice layout. Just not the one you were envisioning. I would decide what elements you can borrow from the tonopah and the other plan (don't include the loops) and try to incorporate them into an around the walls design.

your mileage may vary,

Guy

see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, October 1, 2017 10:57 AM

BMMECNYC

Phil pointed this out:  the two red circles.  The distance between the turnout and the point were the tracks cross is insuficient to make clearance for a train underneath in HO scale.  The one on the left will be around a 14% grade (calculated a rise over run of 3.5"/24").  Splitting the difference with a 7% grade still may not work well, and you will want to leave vertical transistions between the starts and stops of grade

The right hand one looks like it is about 11%.  Still a somewhat troublesome 5.5% once you split the grade.

You are correct about the vertical clearance problems at those circled spots. That was my original plan that I have now abandoned, and I mistakenly utilized a 1" rise/fall per 24" travel span, rather than a 48" travel span.

BMMECNYC
I'm guessing by further posts that you have modified your plan somewhat to shorten your peninsula.


Yes I shorten the center peninsula quite a bit, and concurrently figured I could make portions of the two side shelves wider down near those two loops (blobs) at the entrance.

I also corrected my grade allowances to be 1" for each 24" of travel distance. 

BMMECNYC
There is no scale reference on this drawing (squares) so I cannot say for sure, but it looks like the yard tracks on the right are not spaced far enough apart for two cars to sit on the tracks next to each other.  I have about the same space to work with and have had these problems crop up in my track planning software (most software will let you place track right next to each other with no consideration of centerline track spacing).


I did not realize this. I thought the software track programs would surely include this as a problem area?

 

BMMECNYC
Adequate spacing is shown for parallel tracks on the right hand side of the plan just below the double crossover piece. Another quick observation: with 24" radius curves, and even with locomotives that hinge in the middle (this actually exacerbates the problem in some cases), you may have a side swipe issues with the boiler and the cab swinging out (depending on which direction your locomotive is going) at this spot (the point 1-2feet below the double crossover).

I think those cross overs are too tight. I just quickly sketched them in to try and visulize how the trains might tranverse the layout.

 

 

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • From: various locations
  • 2,191 posts
Posted by BMMECNYC on Sunday, October 1, 2017 7:47 AM

railandsail

SMART software view

On another forum a gentleman Phil was so gracious to give me this view he created with what I think was SMART.

 

 

I had another play around with it. There is nothing wrong with the software I'm using to plan it. Problem is the track plan is tight,real tight. Would work semi ok with smaller engines. I used Peco #6 turnouts or curved Peco #7. Expect for the port area. nothing would work expect Atlas #4. Distances  i.e CTC are Centre track to Centre track distance. You would need to allow for edges of benchwork and overhang on loco's.

I would change the placement of the yard, as suggested. But end of the day its your track plan. You will be the one building it and living with it. There are  issues with some grade separations. As highlighted by red circles.Also, there isnt much spare space for buildings scenery as well. Phil

 

I say it proves I can fit that plan into my shed, albeit with some narrower aisles than many would utilize.

Brian

 

Phil pointed this out:  the two red circles.  The distance between the turnout and the point were the tracks cross is insuficient to make clearance for a train underneath in HO scale.  The one on the left will be around a 14% grade (calculated a rise over run of 3.5"/24").  Splitting the difference with a 7% grade still may not work well, and you will want to leave verticle transistions between the starts and stops of grades.

The right hand one looks like it is about 11%.  Still a somewhat troublesome 5.5% once you split the grade.

Im guessing by further posts that you have modified your plan somewhat to shorten your peninsula.  

There is no scale reference on this drawing (squares) so I cannot say for sure, but it looks like the yard tracks on the right are not spaced far enough apart for two cars to sit on the tracks next to each other.  Adequate spacing is shown for parallel tracks on the right hand side of the plan just below the double crossover piece.  Another quick observation: with 24" radius curves, and even with locomotives that hinge in the middle (this actually exacerbates the problem in some cases), you may have a side swipe issues with the boiler and the cab swinging out (depending on which direction your locomotive is going) at this spot (the point 1-2feet below the double crossover).  

I have about the same space to work with and have had these problems crop up in my track planning software (most software will let you place track right next to each other with no consideration of centerline track spacing). 

Check out the newly re-worked RP-7 (formerly S-7) from the NMRA. 

https://www.nmra.org/index-nmra-standards-and-recommended-practices

You may find that RP 7.1, 7.2, 7.3. and TN 7 very useful in avoiding clearance issues.

Rule 108: In case of doubt or uncertainty, the safe course must be taken.

https://www.facebook.com/elkcreekloggingcompany/

https://www.facebook.com/SilvertonLakeCityandNorthern/

  • Member since
    November 2006
  • From: Northeast
  • 731 posts
Posted by GraniteRailroader on Sunday, October 1, 2017 6:24 AM

Good morning,

It's hard to see on your drawing where your depth measurements are. I've got a couple ideas for you but they're going to take some time to flesh out.

I threw the turntable down just so you could get an idea of what the size is.

Is the turnback loop abso-looply necessary, if you're going to have the ability for a continuous run? Eliminating the loop and making it into a normal curve to bridge over the door way would give you considerably more real estate for the yard and turntable - including giving you the option to have the full size roundhouse.

This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Saturday, September 30, 2017 11:13 PM

trainnut1250
.....

The two turn back loops don’t fit tin the space easily. They make your scenes along the walls too short. Loops are hard to scenic and they limit your possibilities – for example, your TT and tracks won’t fit in the space you have put them (you will see this when you draw the design accurately)

My two cents,

Guy

 

Did you see this ealier posting of mine?

Lone Pine & Tonopah

I spoke previously of 2 layout plans that were very interesting to me to review in my effort to arrive at a combo of two. That second layout was the Lone Pine & Tonopah. The dwg I have on file came from a Nov 1993 issue of Model Railroader mag. I believe he has since made a number of changes to this original design.

Lone_Pine_amp_Tonopah_RR_750.jpg

No matter, as I would seek to make a number of changes as well to it in order for it to scale down to fit my shed. Its more the concept I would be looking at. I have mentioned that I might be looking at the Balt/east coast theme for the lower level of my layout. With that in mind I would be interested in that roundhouse scene and city backdrop being located somewhat similar on that right hand side 'blob' of my layout as one enters the layout. I have a goodly number of real nice steam engines I would like to be 'on display' in that roundtable scene (with more on the outdoor tracks than inside any roundhouse). I had a similar 'display of steam' on my old Central Midland layout.

I figure my lower level in that area would have to neck down much more to give aisle clearance. So my railyard tracks would have to be perhaps half in number to those he has. And my city backdrop would have to be just a single layer of very thinly sectioned buildings, and a good painted backdrop. I would still like to have that circular mainline going around the roundtable facility and 'under' the city. I would also like to have that mainline join with the one that would cross the shed's door opening via a nice lift-out bridge (Chesapeake Bay Bridge or whatever).

Turntable_City_Freight_Yard_side_of_layout.jpg

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Saturday, September 30, 2017 10:58 PM

GraniteRailroader

Spent fifteen minutes in XtrakCad to do this real quick...

 

When I made the center peninsula much shorter than original, I intended to make that lower deck with the railyard much deeper. For instance at the 7' horizontal marker of yours, my drawing indicates a shelf depth of 33",...then necking down to 21-22" from the wall.

I drew my TT to small in diameter. You have corrected that, but you have placed it incorrectly. Its center should be 22" from the end of the shed, and 24" from the side wall.

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 1,240 posts
Posted by trainnut1250 on Saturday, September 30, 2017 6:19 PM

railandsail



It has been suggested on another forum that I do some full scale paper templates on the track plan. I will give that a try in some of those 'tight areas' such as the turntable/double loop area.

 

Brian

 

Yes this is a good idea.

 

Stuff you probably don’t want to hear - IMHO - Your space is too small for the type of layout you are designing. 12’ is too narrow to fit turn back loops and a peninsula without making compromises to the aisle width and curve radii that you might regret later. You will get much more bang for your buck if you lose the loops – all of them. The two turn back loops don’t fit tin the space easily. They make your scenes along the walls too short. Loops are hard to scenic and they limit your possibilities – for example, your TT and tracks won’t fit in the space you have put them (you will see this when you draw the design accurately),

 

My suggestion is to make the design an around the room design with no turn back loops. This will give you more area for you scenes along the wall and eliminate the tight squeeze at the room entrance and allow you to keep a bigger curve radius. Plan for three scenes on the bottom and three scenes on the top. Limit your selection of goodies to include to just six scenes.

 

Redraw the plan using a track template or a computer program that will accurately draw out the design.

 

My two cents,

 

Guy

 

see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,826 posts
Posted by railandsail on Saturday, September 30, 2017 5:57 PM

Thanks for that wake up call GraniteRail. I did recently discover that I undersized the did of the turntable,..and possible a few other errors from having losey tools while I was on vacation.

It has been suggested on another forum that I do some full scale paper templates on the track plan. I will give that a try in some of those 'tight areas' such as the turntable/double loop area.

When I significanly reduced the length of the center peninsula, I did plan on making that freight yard area bigger in depth (perhaps greater than you have shown?)

  • Member since
    November 2006
  • From: Northeast
  • 731 posts
Posted by GraniteRailroader on Friday, September 29, 2017 5:30 PM

Spent fifteen minutes in XtrakCad to do this real quick...

No matter how you slice it, adding in the ladder where you have pictured in the curves is going to be a problematic section of track. To get what you've pictured, you're going to be using #4 switches at best, or if you go larger, having longer stretches of tangent track where cars won't clear.... and then you have to start making the curve to the narrowed benchwork. As pictured, you have 9 tracks that will run parralel at some some point, unless they are incredibly short and join back together within two feet, maybe three if you're lucky. At that point, you're wasting real estate.

You're at the 8 foot mark, in terms of how long the loop becomes before you even start adding a ladder to bring the tracks back together.

Having the turntable service more then 5 of 6 tracks just isn't going to be practical. You're going to find that you won't have the room to store any of your larger power on the shortened tracks.

Potential solutions that will help:

- Don't double track the return loop.

- Plan for a handful of tracks off the turntable, plus the mocked up roundhouse.

- Three our four yard tracks at most, plus the single main in each direction, for a total of six tracks.

-Relocate the yard and turntable entirely, narrowing the peninsula to 24-30 inches at most. Turntable at the end, with yard tracks occupying 18" or so, with another 6-12" wide section for locomotive servicing. Your yard could have a "wye" to connect to the double track mainline.

 

 

This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements

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!

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!