I am working on a plan for a new layout. HO Scale. 24 ft by 20 Ft. Minimum radius on mainline is 26 inches. The yard is built with#5 Micro enginering ladder system turn outs. Left side of yard features maintenance facilities. Right side of yard has servicing tracks (Fuel Sand etc.) There are several local buisnesses for switching in and out. At some point I would like to run a California Zephyr. I know the turns are a little tight but only so much space available. Additionally where the 2 tracks end at the bottom they will enter tunnel portals and head to undertrack staging on a 2% grade. The track is all flat. I will use terrain changes to get some verticle intrest to the layout. Looking for any feedback. Thanks.
P.S. I do have a larger image if anyone wants it.
I envy your space. Let's put this out front.
With this much space, I'd have to have a drop bridge to connect the lower left and the lower right. You have not crammed too much into your layout, I wonder if you have enough? The yard, which looks good, consumes a lot of space.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Thanks for that.
I was afraid I was trying to put too much in. There are a couple more buisness in the area that could go in. In staging there will be a connection to make a full loop for when I just want to run trains. The geography of the Prototype is very point to point and linear. so I didn't want to connect the 2 ends as they are actually 40 miles apart.
I guess if your happy with point to point, that's your call. I wouldn't, they'd be connected, or a return loop on each end.
You have lots of great space, that'll keep you busy, that's for sure.
Mike.
My You Tube
The CZ should run on 26" radius with no issues as long as your track work is pretty perfect. I have a friend who runs his CZ on my layout including some 24" radius in one area. Does it look right? Not really as the passenger cars overhang. If you can squeak out 28" for your mainline in some places, that would help. I do like your track plan, well done.
Neal
I too vote for larger radius curves; guessing you could manage 28 at least in that space, maybe 30.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Add another voice for slightly wider curves. I have 28" min R on my layout. I worked through my first run CZ set when they were first released and wrote up what I did to get them running reliably on 28" R. See: http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/p/54626/2142460.aspx
A couple of inches doesn't seem like much, but can be very aggravating when you're already all the way towards the minimum.
The yard is large, but doesn't dominate, so works for me.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
The S-curves you have going into the turnaround blobs on the peninsula and lower left will create problems for a passenger train at speed. Especially with a 26" radius.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
After reading Carl's post, I spent some time looking. It seems like all along the lay out, he's sacrificing easement space in order to keep the tracks parallel to the edge.
I'd push things back to allow better easements, and not worry about being straight with the edge. It would make a more interesting view.
Same with the peninsula, that loop on the end should start back farther, making a better easement on both top and bottom.
And the lower left, why the S curve? just run it straight off the top curve to the end, the bottom corner. It doesn't return anyway, it just ends. That might make space for a run-a-round siding, for moving freight back and forth.
I'm NOT a track planner, just checking it out, adding my worth.
EDIT: On a point to point, with no return loops, what do you with the train at the end? Just pick it up off the tracks, and put it away? I could see freight movement, using run-a-rounds, and making loads for the return trip, but what about the CZ?
A couple of inches doesn't seem like much
In the lower range of curve radii, such as the twenties, a couple of inches make a big difference. It may be that the OP was thinking hey, the BLI recommended minimum radius is 22 inches so 26 should be fine. Sometimes manufacturers recommend unrealistic minimums; it may be that the cars can physically make it around 22 inches - the trucks can do it even with the full length side skirts etc., but as Mike commented, even 26 inches may be pushing your luck from a practical stand point.
Anyway, the point is, "pushing it" with sharp curves can reveal problems if operators want to run long rolling stock such as 85' passenger cars or 89' auto racks and TOFC flat cars etc. Those may look awkward even on 36 inch curves, as i found out, but they will operate smoothly. The trick is to find the maximum curve radii you can fit.
In the space presented, it my be that 30 inch curves can be fitted into the space keeping the overall track plan intact, but modifying it somewhat. IMO, 30-inches should kind of be a minimum for a layout that big, and should be possible in a space that large. In the space I have I've opted to push it slightly higher for 32 inch minimums at the sacrifice of some narrow benchwork and aisle but doable. Some curves can be higher in some parts of the layout.
mbinsewi After reading Carl's post, I spent some time looking. It seems like all along the lay out, he's sacrificing easement space in order to keep the tracks parallel to the edge.
I've read some articles which mention that for asthetic purposes, it's preferable to not have tracks parallel the edge of the layout too much. I think it makes sense.
mbinsewi EDIT: On a point to point, with no return loops, what do you with the train at the end? Just pick it up off the tracks, and put it away? I could see freight movement, using run-a-rounds, and making loads for the return trip, but what about the CZ?
riogrande5761 Or the ends could go down to staging underneath. There is certainly ability to accommodate continuous running or turnaround.
He already said that is his plan in the first post.
DRGWGJCO Additionally where the 2 tracks end at the bottom they will enter tunnel portals and head to undertrack staging on a 2% grade.
I don’t usually reply to plan specifics, but there are a number of concerns/opportunities here. I would certainly explore a two-blob (turnback curve) footprint rather than three. There are some S-curve concerns, including one apparently at the upper right leading into the freight yard. The yard itself could probably be arranged a bit more efficiently. It does seem to be a lot of modeled yard for the modeled industries, but without knowing the specific location to be modeled and the type of operation planned, that may not apply.
To the Original Poster, good luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
DRGWGJCO. Additionally where the 2 tracks end at the bottom they will enter tunnel portals and head to undertrack staging on a 2% grade. The track is all flat. I will use terrain changes to get some verticle intrest to the layout. Looking for any feedback. Thanks.
Yep, he did, missed it Never mind!
cuyama riogrande5761 Or the ends could go down to staging underneath. There is certainly ability to accommodate continuous running or turnaround. He already said that is his plan in the first post.
Just scanned the layout picture without re-reading the OP text.
Never mind.
I guess its just me but I would want return loops even if I had to hide them somehow.
Joe Staten Island West
This is exactly why I posted this here. I appreciate all the advice. Construction wont begin for a year so this is kind of a 4ough draft. I did intend to shift things a little to create easements. SCARM doesn't really lend itself to easement creation.
DRGWGJCO Construction wont begin for a year so this is kind of a 4ough draft.
Construction wont begin for a year so this is kind of a 4ough draft.
I envy you. At my age, I don't plan anything more than several days ahead, and sometimes even that seems risky.
York1 John
York1 DRGWGJCO Construction wont begin for a year so this is kind of a 4ough draft. I envy you. At my age, I don't plan anything more than several days ahead, and sometimes even that seems risky.
I get that. My thoughts were if I had a plan that I was happy and confident with, then when constructions started I could just go and maybe get the track laid faster
cuyamaThe yard itself could probably be arranged a bit more efficiently. It does seem to be a lot of modeled yard for the modeled industries, but without knowing the specific location to be modeled and the type of operation planned, that may not apply.
The yard plan was kind of free wheeling. I need (I thought at least 4 classification tracks. Local ind east, local ind west, outbound freight east and outbound west.) I have another track for another destination I don't know if I will add or not. (The track on the left wall that just ends.) 5 tracks plus an inbound and outbound track. A passenger track at he station platform and a mainline thru line. As for the length I read somewhere that what ever length your yard was you will wind up needing another 2 feet. So I added a little.
Thoughts?
For the hairpin turn at the right end of the middle peninsula . . .
There doesn't appear to be any straight sections between the reverse curves. I think a straightaway of about 8 or 9 inches would be nice; 12 inches would be nicer.
Making the roundy roundy as a fat J or P shape would eliminate one of the reverse ess-curves.
Looks pretty good overall, though. Personally, I like a low track-to-scenery ratio, so I hope you don't add too much more trackage just because you have the space. IMHO, of course.
Good luck.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Hi DRGWGJCO,
Just for interest's sake, here is our club's layout which is built in a similar space to what you have to work with. It is 25' x 20' as shown. I'm posting it because the design allows for 32" minimum radius on the mainline (in blue). The design may or may not be of interest to you.
There will be a staging area on the lower right out of the picture but that could just as easily have been built under the layout. The tracks on the lower left will lead to a pulp mill operation.
Maximum grade is 2%. There is a total of 270' of mainline and there will be about 350' of secondary track when all of the sidings have been completed.
There are some things that I would do differently if I was starting the design over today. Reach in distances are at maximum in some places with the upper right outside track being just a bit out of reach. That's my bad, but we can get to it with a stool. I would leave more space between the outer tracks and the backdrop so the scenery can have more depth behind the tracks even at the expense of having to reduce the radii a bit.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
2nd try. After all the good advice I have expanded the minimum Radii to 30 inches for the main line. Also got rid of an S curve going into the yard. Other S curves were spread out with at least 18 inches of straight track between the curves. Add 4 or 5 more buisnesses. Got rid of some of the paralell tracks for a mor natural and open look. Just looking for more feedback.
DRGWGJCOI have expanded the minimum Radii to 30 inches for the main line. Also got rid of an S curve going into the yard. Other S curves were spread out with at least 18 inches of straight track between the curves.
Good job! I knew you could do it and that should make a big difference the larger radii. S-curves can be a concern to so kudo's for addressing those.
S curves are part of cross-overs so I prefer to use #8 turnouts for those to make them gentle.