One thing that sticks out to me is the hidden turnout creating an, IMO, unecessarily complicated way to get to the inner loop. Losing the turnout and the loop and relocating the enginehouse more to the left side of the layout will help to open up the area for improving access to the corner.
- Douglas
mcbryanInteresting, so that is indeed a double slip. I assumed it was a crossing because I hadn’t heard of a double slip until today. I was told n scale double slips are unreliable. Is this true?
They are less reliable than a single turnout, yes. The one in the original design looks like it was intended to provide a yard lead. But there would be ways to do that without requiring a double slip (although it would be a significant redesign). KATO doesn’t offer a double-slip, if I recall correctly.
Often copying/modifying a published design without understanding the purposes of the original is less successful than a design from scratch to match one’s own preferences. This is especially important, in my opinion, when the layout is a fairly large undertaking.
mcbryanI will be laying out the track and running trains to identify and resolve track plan issues. The s curves you see are mostly from my desire to get the CAD drawing done. I agree they would disrupt trains.
IMHO, it's always easier to correct known/obvious problems on paper (or in electrons) than on plywood. But best of luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Interesting, so that is indeed a double slip. I assumed it was a crossing because I hadn’t heard of a double slip until today.
I was told n scale double slips are unreliable. Is this true?
I will be laying out the track and running trains to identify and resolve track plan issues. The s curves you see are mostly from my desire to get the CAD drawing done. I agree they would disrupt trains.
If you plan to place that "L" in the corner against two walls, you won't be able to reach many of the tracks. Note that the original layout was built on casters, so it could be rolled out for access.
There are many unbuildable parts of your plan as drawn. I would suggest fixing those before you go much further. Very tight S-curves and other alignment issues will make operation unreliable. Flex track will help, but there are still a number of tough spots. The orignal plan included a double-slip in the yard ladder which you seem to have replaced with a simple crossing. That will compromise the effectiveness of the yard.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
For reference:
N Scale
Adapted from Cascade, Washington in Model Railroader magazine:
http://mrr.trains.com/how-to/track-plan-database/2007/08/cascade-wash
The idea is to provide two lines for constant running, that also require some management. Interesting operations is required. I basically want it all, to be able to have trains running on their own, but also enough variety that I can manage operations. There should be enough sidings and yardwork. Also tunnels and bridges break up the runs to keep them appealing.
The measurements on the sides are accurate. Kato track is used, however I fudged some areas because I'll be using flex track, and will have that flexibility.
Three locos will live on the layout to start. An F7, and Alco RS3, and a GP50 for yard work. Everything 4 axles. I'm trying to keep all freight to 40' max. I try to keep curves at a max 11" radius.