a_switcherAre people saying that Craig Bisgeier's design has a switch back problem as well?
Yes, it's misleading and I wish that he'd change it.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Steven OtteYour prior plan does follow Craig's design fairly faithfully, and you wouldn't have a problem if Craig's design wasn't flawed to begin with.
I've spoken to Craig about that a couple of times. It really is a misleading diagram. Craig knows how to design smooth running yards -- that diagram looks nothing like his own layout's yards, for example. I don't know where it came from.
a_switcher I got a message from gregc which sorted out my confusing about the switchback, I think. Does this quick sketch of the yard design avoid the switchback problem? Thanks, Andy
I got a message from gregc which sorted out my confusing about the switchback, I think. Does this quick sketch of the yard design avoid the switchback problem?
Thanks,
Andy
Yes, that's much better. See how after your train is assembled in the yard, whether by the road power or a switch engine, it can then pull directly out onto the mainline. That's what you want. The position of the yard lead is good, too, serving to let a switcher classify a train in the yard without fouling the main. It also gives the switcher somewhere to pull off to when the road power backs in to couple onto the train.
a_switcher I've been basing my yard design on this page by Craig Bisgeier: http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html I think my design is similar schematically to this. Are people saying that Craig Bisgeier's design has a switch back problem as well? Or is there something in mine that is causing it that I'm not seeing?
I've been basing my yard design on this page by Craig Bisgeier: http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html
I think my design is similar schematically to this. Are people saying that Craig Bisgeier's design has a switch back problem as well? Or is there something in mine that is causing it that I'm not seeing?
Your prior plan does follow Craig's design fairly faithfully, and you wouldn't have a problem if Craig's design wasn't flawed to begin with.
a_switcher Maybe my confusion is that I'm expecting trains to built on the arrival/departure track. If that were the case, then an engine would be able to move from the yard drill track to the A/D track, couple with the built train, and depart counter clockwise without running the train through the switchback. But maybe its typical to build trains on one of the yard ladder tracks? If so, then there would be a switch back to get to the mainline. I believe the Craig Bisgeier plan has this issue as well. My goal is to operate realistic to prototype as much as possible.
Maybe my confusion is that I'm expecting trains to built on the arrival/departure track. If that were the case, then an engine would be able to move from the yard drill track to the A/D track, couple with the built train, and depart counter clockwise without running the train through the switchback. But maybe its typical to build trains on one of the yard ladder tracks? If so, then there would be a switch back to get to the mainline. I believe the Craig Bisgeier plan has this issue as well. My goal is to operate realistic to prototype as much as possible.
An arrival/departure track is, as the name implies, used for arriving and departing trains. Trains are built in the classification yard.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
IMHO, that long spur at the top of the plan begs to have a turnout installed for anohter forked spur, perhaps for another rail served industry.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
Steven OtteHi, Andy, The problem I see with this track plan is that the yard is accessible only via a switchback maneuver, which is cumbersome to operate, limits your train length, and would never be built by a prototype railroad. The locomotive that would build this train will then be on the wrong end of the train to pull it around the layout, unless you intend to back onto the main. Finally, once you're on the main, you're heading in the wrong direction to be able to reverse via that turnback loop -- unless, again, you intend to back through it. Neither of Cuyama's suggested plans have these issues.
I must have a misunderstanding about how yards operate because I'm not understanding the switchback feedback. I assume the switchback movement you are talking about is 1) yard ladder track to drill track 2) drill track to arrival/departure track 3) arrival/departure track to mainline in counter clockwise direction.
By the way, I reversed the direction of the crossover from Bryon's plan (inadvertently), so trains leaving the yard will be going counter clockwise. Once they hit the crossover, they'll return to the yard clockwise.
Thanks, Andy
One additional thought:
The larger space you have chosen for this version will help open things up. Be sure to consider room for structures and scenic elements (such as the river, if you decide to include it). A little extra space may let you model things with a more realistic appearance.
Although it’s entirely up to you, I often try to set the “oval” at a slight angle to rectangular benchwork. I think this helps (subtly) with appearance, but it’s entirely up to you -- you may find it more straightforward to build with more tracks parallel to the benchwork edges.
You are headed in one right direction, I think.
As I noted originally and Steven Otte correctly points out as well, the yard is still awkwardly connected in your new plan and will be tedious to operate. Compare it with the way I connected the yard in my rough examples.
a_switcheris the forked siding in the lower left of the loop intended to be used for industry or as a yard of some kind?
It's intended to be a large industry.
a_switcherAlso, to get the clearances right I'll need short straight pieces in the crossovers and yard turnouts. The shortest is 0.3'', and the rest are at least an inch. Is this a reasonable plan, or am I going to have trouble cutting down flexitrack to this size?
If the yard tracks are straight or very gently curved, you don't need as much track-center-to-track-center clearance as in the tight curves. So what develops naturally from the turnouts may be fine. Otherwise, yes, short straight pieces of flextrack work fine to join turnouts. Note any crossovers should probably be PECO “Mediums”. Although “Small” turnouts might work in the crossovers for any equipment that can negotiate the 9¾” curves, the “Mediums” are a better bet.
Edit: As I see you have already done once I looked more closely.
Byron
a_switcher Hopefully the image will be visible to everyone this time. Here's the new layout. Andy
Hopefully the image will be visible to everyone this time. Here's the new layout.
Thanks for more great comments. They really helped. I fixed the issues Bryon pointed out in my layout, and my son and I really like your second layout after studying it for a while. I created another version which takes inspiration by adding the crossover to our original layout. It still has the loop but we'll run it as end to loop like Bryon's version, and we added the facing and trailing turnout sidings to force multiple trips from yard to loop to visit everything. Thanks for the suggestion!
I was able to keep the arrival departure track and the big yard, but at the cost of being 7'' wider compared to Bryons, and an inch deeper.
I think this version gets the easements and clearances right. Its 1.25'' clearance throughout.
I have a couple questions. In Bryon's second plan, is the forked siding in the lower left of the loop intended to be used for industry or as a yard of some kind?
Also, to get the clearances right I'll need short straight pieces in the crossovers and yard turnouts. The shortest is 0.3'', and the rest are at least an inch. Is this a reasonable plan, or am I going to have trouble cutting down flexitrack to this size?
Thanks for helping everyone!
I like the original track plan since it doesn't have that reversing loop. For a beginning layout I don't think a person wants to make a DPDT wiring.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
i thought the OPs new yard arrangement wasn't that bad except for the points you made. I think he needs to rearrange the turnouts and a yard lead as long as a yard track (little tight on space).
_____________________________________________________ \________________________/ __________________/ \___________________ \__________________ \_________________
with those changes the mainline siding track can be used to return a train to the yard w/o blocking the main, allowing a switcher on the yard lead to shuffle card back into the yard and create new trains.
this same approach, using a siding track as part of the yard would also be useful, if not essential as an escape track for a train returning after going thru the reverse loop to avoid backing a train back thru the loop or into the yard..
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
BigDaddyByron I hope you keep posting your comments. The newbies, who prematurely commit to some plan in an Atlas book may not be listening, but the rest of us, who will be adding or remodeling on our own layouts are listening.
Thanks, I do try to help -- but as my wife reminds me: "Byron, it’s only 'help' if the other person wants it." And I don't think she's talking exclusively about train forums ...
Here’s another quick (and rough) version that gives up yard length for a longer siding where two trains could meet and pass. Both of these plans have reversing sections that might prove cumbersome for switching in DC, but would work fine with DCC. The plans could be easily reworked to eliminate the reversing sections. And both are based exclusively on flextrack, so they may not be at all what the Original Poster desires.
BigDaddyok that picture method worked too. for now.
Google photos and some other photos often times don't work reliably because of access restrictions (that have nothing to do with this site). I have no trouble with Trainboard's Railimages.
Byron I hope you keep posting your comments. The newbies, who prematurely commit to some plan in an Atlas book may not be listening, but the rest of us, who will be adding or remodeling on our own layouts are listening.
ok that picture method worked too. for now.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
The only thing that has been less productive for me than commenting on layout specifics is posting alternative sketches -- but here goes. This is a very quick adaptation of a client project that was heavily oriented toward a single way freight (with an occasionally orbiting Rail Diesel Car [RDC] for interest and operating challenge). I took the liberty of widening to 28”, as this will still just permit a reach across the layout if placed against a wall.
This very rough sketch fits a lot of switching into a small area, sacrificing minimum radius and all but the shortest 2-train operation. One my favorite compact schematics, out-and-back. A crossover between two of the yard tracks might be helpful as an engine escape, at the cost of yard capacity.
This may not be a great fit for the Original Poster’s needs, but it shows what is possible, even at minimum radius (I did sacrifice the easements to fit a little more).
BigDaddyA while ago someone suggested that you could right click "view image" then right click again and copy "image location" and paste it in the forum.
Almost. After you right-click and "copy image location" of the desired graphic, next click on the icon in the post window that looks like a mountain and sun ("Inser/edit image"), paste the image location in the "Source" line in the box that opens, and click OK. Voila.
It still doesn't work every time for everything, but that's a baseline method that works most often for me.
Tinplate Toddler Just making the OP´s track plan visible.
Just making the OP´s track plan visible.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mX7D9VMyJAYkgjEWe9EqYE9qSB9m4o4G
A while ago someone suggested that you could right click "view image" then right click again and copy "image location" and paste it in the forum. I've found that only works for a few moments, then it disappears. At the moment it doesn't work at all.
To the OP there is a sticky in the general forum on how to post pictures. This forum is diffenent than other forums you may be used to and there is no way around following the rules.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Folks not logged-in to Google may not be able to see your image.
I’ve generally stopped commenting specifically on plans, since many posters aren’t actually interested in even constructive criticism. But since you are planning to build so soon, I’ll try. Most concerning (to me): even with easements, 9” is very tight for N scale. The usual minimum is 9 3/4”, and even that rules out a lot of equipment.
The yard arrangement is much more restrictive than necessary. The only way to get into or out of it is via that very short switchback. That shuffling will become tedious, I think.
The yard tracks (and others) come too close to the edge. Most folks prefer at least 2-3” for N scale, less can work if you put up some sort of guard, but you still need some clearance.
The curved passing siding at the left doesn’t seem to allow enough track-to-track spacing except perhaps in the very middle. This will significantly limit the usable length. The NMRA recommendation for N scale at 10” radius is 1¼” track-center-to-track-center.
The industry spurs at the left are probably shorter than you think, once you allow for clearance from the adjacent track.
The switchback track to the industries on the right will require one industry to be emptied every time the other is switched. That’s not very realistic, but it’s up to you if that matters.
You could probably get by with two passing sidings/runarounds -- or maybe even just one. This would free up space elsewhere.
Your general idea is OK, but I am afraid these things will prove frustrating over time. A re-start from scratch on the design probably isn't very appealing, but would likely pay long-term dividends
Good luck with your layout.
Thanks for the feedback. It's been great getting experienced eyes to take a look before trying to build anything.
I've made a couple tweaks based on that:
Here's the new version: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mX7D9VMyJAYkgjEWe9EqYE9qSB9m4o4G
It's color coded now. The blue is what I'm thinking will be the mainline. The lower grey siding can serve as an arrival / departure track.
I'm building this with my 8 year old son, and we're excited to start on the benchwork this weekend, and hopefully make some good progress over labor day weekend!
Welcome to the forums.
I'd suggest that you consider a view block in the center of your layout. It gives the trains some place to go, out of sight of the other side.
I am assuming that the blue line is a stream. At the left side you could have a mountain, a source for your river, with a tunnel. On the right I'd curve down below the three buildings and cross the double track. You could use an auto bridge or buildings to hide the transition. Other things to be used to hide passages through view blocks include rock cuts and thick stands of trees.
Have fun,
Richard
to the worlds greatest hobby, and online community/ies thereof!
Your plan looks way better than my first "layout", so cookie points there. In regards to your mainline, you stated you wanted two trains running at once, utilizing sidings. May I propose a couple ideas? First, stretch the single track that feeds into the two sidings at the bottom of your plan, thus moving the turnouts farther away from the main. This, along with a few tweaks to you liking, will allow you to run two mainline trains at once without having to stop one in order for the other to clear the main. This also allows you two do yard switching on top of the other trains, and gives more room for a switcher to pull out with some cars without clogging the only main. Other than that, a bit of terrian variety and some trees to hide the fact that trains are going in circles, and you should be good to go!!!
I'm beginning to realize that Windows 10 and sound decoders have a lot in common. There are so many things you have to change in order to get them to work the way you want.
it looks like you're planning a 3 track yard in the interior of the loop with a lead to avoid interfering with the main track. The problem is the tracks are relatively short.
it also looks like your trying to maximize the curve radii. have you considered putting the yard tracks outside of the loop where the tracks can go to the edge of the layout and be longer. you may need tighter mainline radii. The yard lead can also be longer by wrapping around the outside of the main track?
Hello Andy,
to the wonderful world of model railroading and this forum.
I take the liberty to make your track plan visible in this thread:
A point of critique are the curves. They just don´t look right, because they are not following prototype practice, i.e start with a wider radius and than narrow down. That is called an easement. In your plan, you start with a tight radius and than widen the radius.
I also have a feeling that the radius in some place is much tighter than the 10.5" you mention in your post. Better check and correct this or you won´t be enjoying this layout for long.
In the words of the article I based my own layout on, you will hopefully build a number of layouts in your time so don't be afraid of making a mistake. The layout is a good looking start and will allow you to "grow" the layout so you do not have to get the lot before starting.
I like the idea of the less geometric look and would suggest that you could use flex track for the "straight sections" to put a bit of a wave to make it look even less geometric.
When N scale first came out here in the 60's, I saw a number of long trains run around 9" radius curves which is what Rapido and others supplied so I am not quite sure that 3 cars should be your limit.
Perhaps I would be shortening your long passing siding and lengthening the loop at the back but I would be comfortable with what you are planning.
Certainly you have done exactly what Linn Westcott would have wanted you to do by picking the eyes of the parts of trackplans you like and designed your own so well done.
If you care to PM me, I have an article that could be of use to you in growing your layout, in fact I applied the principles to a 6 x 3 N scale layout many years ago so not that much bigger than yours will be.
In any case, good luck and enjoy the hobby... if you are having fun, you are doing it right!
Cheers from Australia
Trevor
Hi, I'm new to the hobby and have adapted aspects from the smaller layouts in the 101 layouts book to come up with this layout. My goals are:
1) a layout small enough to not take on too much for a starter project. The layout is 60''x30''.
2) Allow for interesting scenery. I'm thinking a Washington cascades setting with mountains rising from the river valley. The layout is an oval that's rotated slightly to avoid it looking too geometric.
3) Versatile operationally since I'm not sure what will be most interesting to me. This layout should allow for two trains to run continuously via the sidings. Or, one train switching while another runs on the mainline. There's an interchange/staging area, classification can happen in the yard, and industry on the spurs. Trains will be small though, maybe 3 cars and an engine, due to the tight curves (min 10.5'' radius) and small size.
Here's the layout: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gpTBXhacOYaFyz_GUmZQgyKtrBAQhrrM/view?usp=sharing
I'd appreciate any feedback or advice before going ahead with this.
Thanks!