ATLANTIC CENTRAL crossthedog MurBall Thanks Matt, some good news there. I do like the bachmann spectrum carriages and the level of detail (I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a rivet counter!), do they always tend to be shorter than the prototype similar to the athearn cars? No, I believe the Spectrum and Branchline passenger cars I have are not as short as the Athearn equivalents. To my lights, they look like standard length heavyweights, but I am not well schooled in this matter. I always forget how to figure the math, but if 1:87 means you multiply inches by 87 and then divide by 12 to get scale feet, I figure my cars are just shy of 80' in length. I think the Athearn shorties are more like 65' or 70'. Someone here would know offhand, I'm sure. -Matt OK, I have been reluctant to comment in thread for a number of reasons, but here goes. In the real world of North American railroading, heavyweight steel passenger cars from the early part of the 20th century came in a wide variety of lengths. Yes, many were 80' (+/-), and most sleepers, diners, obsevations built by Pullman road on a semi standard 80' frame. BUT, head end equipment (baggage, RPO, express, etc), and coaches, and a LONG list of other exceptions came in an endless selection of lengths from 60' (or even less) up to 80'. So, to assume that a model in incorrect based on length alone would be incorrect thinking. EVEN early streamlined/smoothside cars came in various lengths. The B&O Columbian, a great many of the first SP "daylight" cars, and a variety of others were less than 80' long, typically 75' to 78'. While the newest streamliners built in the 40's and 50's were typically, but not always, 85' long. Now that we have cleared that up. Each of the Bachmann Spectrum heavyweight cars are correct models - maybe not for all the road names offered, but they are correct models of cars that existed - including their length. The coach and combine are PRR prototypes and are 78' long. The Pullman is a unique floor plan Pullman built with a vestiblue only at one end, it is 80' long, the diner and observation are also Pullman plan cars that are 80' long. The Athearn heavyweight cars are 72' long, except the RPO/baggage which is 67' long. They are completely freelanced using "typical" Pullman company construction details. That said, the baggage, RPO/Baggage, and coach are very close matches to cars that did exist, including their 72' length. To go deeper into this requires a BOOK, or two. Now, as I said above I have been reluctant to comment on this thread. No offense to the OP, but I will be more direct than others who have tried to steer him in the direction of larger curves or compressed passenger equipment. I think the proposed track plan tries to put too much, in way too little space, and will be a construction, operational, and maintenance disaster. It is hard for me to understand the OP's goals, but trying to run 80' cars on 24" radius, and squeeze in all these different elements seems destined to look toylike and not operate well. Maybe the first consideration is not a concern? And the broad scope of subject matter the OP hopes to cover? I realize that I have considerably more space than the OP, but his space is not exactly small. I am posting my track plan in an effort to explain the concept of modeling "one place" and having the trains come and go from/to continous thru staging. layout facts: Minimum mainline radius - 36" radius with 16" long easements Minimum mainline turnout - #6 Design train length of most staging tracks - 20 actual feet, 1740 scale feet. Again, the OP's plan mat well be right in line with his goals and that is fine. We all do in this hobby what interests us. But from an engineering standpoint, I think he has a lot of engineering challenges with this plan. Sheldon
crossthedog MurBall Thanks Matt, some good news there. I do like the bachmann spectrum carriages and the level of detail (I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a rivet counter!), do they always tend to be shorter than the prototype similar to the athearn cars? No, I believe the Spectrum and Branchline passenger cars I have are not as short as the Athearn equivalents. To my lights, they look like standard length heavyweights, but I am not well schooled in this matter. I always forget how to figure the math, but if 1:87 means you multiply inches by 87 and then divide by 12 to get scale feet, I figure my cars are just shy of 80' in length. I think the Athearn shorties are more like 65' or 70'. Someone here would know offhand, I'm sure. -Matt
MurBall Thanks Matt, some good news there. I do like the bachmann spectrum carriages and the level of detail (I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a rivet counter!), do they always tend to be shorter than the prototype similar to the athearn cars?
Thanks Matt, some good news there. I do like the bachmann spectrum carriages and the level of detail (I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a rivet counter!), do they always tend to be shorter than the prototype similar to the athearn cars?
No, I believe the Spectrum and Branchline passenger cars I have are not as short as the Athearn equivalents. To my lights, they look like standard length heavyweights, but I am not well schooled in this matter.
I always forget how to figure the math, but if 1:87 means you multiply inches by 87 and then divide by 12 to get scale feet, I figure my cars are just shy of 80' in length. I think the Athearn shorties are more like 65' or 70'. Someone here would know offhand, I'm sure.
-Matt
OK, I have been reluctant to comment in thread for a number of reasons, but here goes.
In the real world of North American railroading, heavyweight steel passenger cars from the early part of the 20th century came in a wide variety of lengths. Yes, many were 80' (+/-), and most sleepers, diners, obsevations built by Pullman road on a semi standard 80' frame.
BUT, head end equipment (baggage, RPO, express, etc), and coaches, and a LONG list of other exceptions came in an endless selection of lengths from 60' (or even less) up to 80'.
So, to assume that a model in incorrect based on length alone would be incorrect thinking.
EVEN early streamlined/smoothside cars came in various lengths. The B&O Columbian, a great many of the first SP "daylight" cars, and a variety of others were less than 80' long, typically 75' to 78'. While the newest streamliners built in the 40's and 50's were typically, but not always, 85' long.
Now that we have cleared that up.
Each of the Bachmann Spectrum heavyweight cars are correct models - maybe not for all the road names offered, but they are correct models of cars that existed - including their length. The coach and combine are PRR prototypes and are 78' long. The Pullman is a unique floor plan Pullman built with a vestiblue only at one end, it is 80' long, the diner and observation are also Pullman plan cars that are 80' long.
The Athearn heavyweight cars are 72' long, except the RPO/baggage which is 67' long. They are completely freelanced using "typical" Pullman company construction details. That said, the baggage, RPO/Baggage, and coach are very close matches to cars that did exist, including their 72' length.
To go deeper into this requires a BOOK, or two.
Now, as I said above I have been reluctant to comment on this thread.
No offense to the OP, but I will be more direct than others who have tried to steer him in the direction of larger curves or compressed passenger equipment.
I think the proposed track plan tries to put too much, in way too little space, and will be a construction, operational, and maintenance disaster.
It is hard for me to understand the OP's goals, but trying to run 80' cars on 24" radius, and squeeze in all these different elements seems destined to look toylike and not operate well.
Maybe the first consideration is not a concern?
And the broad scope of subject matter the OP hopes to cover?
I realize that I have considerably more space than the OP, but his space is not exactly small. I am posting my track plan in an effort to explain the concept of modeling "one place" and having the trains come and go from/to continous thru staging.
layout facts:
Minimum mainline radius - 36" radius with 16" long easements
Minimum mainline turnout - #6
Design train length of most staging tracks - 20 actual feet, 1740 scale feet.
Again, the OP's plan mat well be right in line with his goals and that is fine. We all do in this hobby what interests us. But from an engineering standpoint, I think he has a lot of engineering challenges with this plan.
Sheldon
Thanks Sheldon, I am looking for more experienced opinions on this forum . I do worry that my proposed layout is too ambitious from an engineering point of view. Will I ever get it actually built and finished!
And that I am stuffing too much into my available space. However avoiding a toyline look isn't as big a concern for me as it probably is for you, prototypical realism is not very important to me. As long as things don't derail I am fairly content. I do want my operations plan to work when I choose to run operations. Alot of my time might well be spent railfanning though!
Thanks for you layout plan , I'll study it.
MurBall,
A few things I should add.
In case you are not aware, if you click on my track plans it will take you to a larger view.
Even with my large curves, I choose to run lots of selectively compressed passenger cars like those from Athearn.
Understand, that even 36" radius represents a curve in real life that would only be found in a restricted speed situation.
Yes, I am interested in "big picture" realism, so overall effect is more important than each piece of rolling stock being exactly correct.
I also model a very narrow space and time, the Mid Atlantic region of the US in 1954.
Take care,
Sheldon is there any element specifically you would remove because it will be a pain to build or maintain? Like perhaps the gradient to staging on a lower level? Or a scene like the urban industrial section or reduce size of the yard?
Keeping the Highline is a must for me as I love watching trains pass above and below each other, winding in and out of view.
-Ray
MurBall Sheldon is there any element specifically you would remove because it will be a pain to build or maintain? Like perhaps the gradient to staging on a lower level? Or a scene like the urban industrial section or reduce size of the yard? Keeping the Highline is a must for me as I love watching trains pass above and below each other, winding in and out of view. -Ray
Ray, how about an approach like this. Move the passenger station to the long side of the room at a highest elevation like you have it now.
Put the freight yard in front of it at a lower elevation, leaving the passenger station go around the room in one direction and come down to the freight yard.
Provide a mainline bypass, which could be hidden under the station to save space.
Leaving the freight yard from the other end continue aroundd the room down grade and disappear into a tunnel down to the staging.
Make the staging a thru yard under the passenger terminal and freight yard.
Leaving the staging continue up grade back to the other end of the passenger station.
And for me, I would make the whole mainline double track.
Then leave the yard, on the end that goes up to the passenger terminal, with a separate level track to industries in front of the other trackage on the end and far long side.
Skip the more complex dead end branch in favor of these industries close to the yard.
These yard connected industries will not cross any tracks at grade and can be worked while trains travel the mainline.
Skip the tuntable, skip the loop, look for a way to squeeze in a wye if you must, for turning stuff.
Hope this makes sense.
Sheldon that makes perfect sense, i can picture it. I'll have a go transferring it into anyrail. Using a DBL main throughout means I could railfan 2 trains at once which while not as enjoyable as 3 is just about enough for me. Operationally it makes sense too. And I can see the benefits of avoiding a terminus and turntable . It does include a second gradient to staging which is a added complexity but perhaps worth it .
One issue in your plan that I have tried to avoid in mine is that all lines include running on a gradient. Now I have a 2.5% gradient on my current layout and most all trains can navigate it fine however from reading forms like these I heard alot of people saying to avoid gradients at all cost as so many trains can't get up them. I will be running a diverse mix of US, British and European locos old and new so I liked that on my current plan I could at least rail fan any loco on the flat loops. Your plan would work great for a strickly focused modern diesel era layout maybe?
MurBall Sheldon that makes perfect sense, i can picture it. I'll have a go transferring it into anyrail. Using a DBL main throughout means I could railfan 2 trains at once which while not as enjoyable as 3 is just about enough for me. Operationally it makes sense too. And I can see the benefits of avoiding a terminus and turntable . It does include a second gradient to staging which is a added complexity but perhaps worth it . One issue in your plan that I have tried to avoid in mine is that all lines include running on a gradient. Now I have a 2.5% gradient on my current layout and most all trains can navigate it fine however from reading forms like these I heard alot of people saying to avoid gradients at all cost as so many trains can't get up them. I will be running a diverse mix of US, British and European locos old and new so I liked that on my current plan I could at least rail fan any loco on the flat loops. Your plan would work great for a strickly focused modern diesel era layout maybe?
You should be able to stretch the grades out and keep them under 2% and have some level areas. 2% or less is usually friendly to the kind of train lengths you will be running.
ATLANTIC CENTRALNo offense to the OP, but I will be more direct than others who have tried to steer him in the direction of larger curves or compressed passenger equipment. I think the proposed track plan tries to put too much, in way too little space, and will be a construction, operational, and maintenance disaster. It is hard for me to understand the OP's goals, but trying to run 80' cars on 24" radius, and squeeze in all these different elements seems destined to look toylike and not operate well.
I second that opinion.
From a freight train perspective, the industrial spurs are too short to not have scenes look toy like too. JMO.
Simply too much going on in the space. Eliminate some things.
- Douglas
Doughless I second that opinion. From a freight train perspective, the industrial spurs are too short to not have scenes look toy like too. JMO. Simply too much going on in the space. Eliminate some things.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain Doughless I second that opinion. From a freight train perspective, the industrial spurs are too short to not have scenes look toy like too. JMO. Simply too much going on in the space. Eliminate some things. I am going to be a contrarian here. I find the proposed track plan intriguing. I say, build it as proposed. See how you like it and how it performs. You can always cut back later. Rich
I am going to be a contrarian here. I find the proposed track plan intriguing. I say, build it as proposed. See how you like it and how it performs. You can always cut back later.
Well, some people can build things knowing they are temporary, and others can not. Only once have I ever dismantled a layout with a plan to build a new one in its place. Every other layout demo was the result of a move. I could never build a layout already knowing in advance it might be temporary.
I think the benchwork itself seems complicated, with three? levels including below staging. He would be pretty committed to the plan after the benchwork is done, IMO.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL some people can build things knowing they are temporary, and others can not. Only once have I ever dismantled a layout with a plan to build a new one in its place. Every other layout demo was the result of a move. I could never build a layout already knowing in advance it might be temporary.
some people can build things knowing they are temporary, and others can not. Only once have I ever dismantled a layout with a plan to build a new one in its place. Every other layout demo was the result of a move. I could never build a layout already knowing in advance it might be temporary.
For sure, the OP should not build this layout knowing in advance that it will only be temporary, but there is no reason not to build this layout, recognizing in advance that some elements may later need to be removed or simplified.
Doughless I think the benchwork itself seems complicated, with three? levels including below staging.
I think the benchwork itself seems complicated, with three? levels including below staging.
Wasn't it George Bernard Shaw who once said, "Some men see things as they are and say why, I dream things that never were and say, why not"?
Rich, Any post that quotes Shaw has my full attention! Thanks Doughless and others for your insights.
This forum discussion has been really interesting for me and has helped crystallise what I want. Sheldon's idea for a less dense model of one spot where trains drive through on the way to a double ended staging has alot of merit. I am drawing it out on anyrail to get a better feel for it.
However I am beginning to think it's main merit is that it avoids what Sheldon called a 'toy' feel and would result in a more realistic and focused scene. It adds some extra complications such as a second down gradient to staging but removes the need for other things like the return loop in my staging.
However I really am not aiming to realistically model a particular prototype and having busy areas with trains passing above and below each other (perhaps toylike) is something I like. I would add a third train on a higher bridge if I could!
Also I think I do want the feel of trains traveling over an area , ideally this would be from east helix staging along a line to west helix staging. But my space is far too small for that. In my plan the travel is from 'rest of world ' staging along a line to a terminus and back out again. I want this much more than seeing trains travel through a realistic scene and disappear again to return to double ended staging. I want to see a train travel from one town to another. I hope I'm making sense here.
Yes my area travelled through and specific scenes will be hugely condensed (a fairly common model railroad technique I think ?). And my 24"curves will be unprototypical. And I will have to choose shorter passenger cars with things like bogie mounted couplers. No Walthers. This is all good for me .
My plan still might be beyond my abilities to build and maintain. I think I should come up with a stripped down version of it with the same number of levels but that allows the addition of extra turnouts,spurs, industries as time goes on.
Ray
I will be running trains from my collection from all sorts of places and backgrounds on this layout.
I contemplated a similar arrangement (laps around the room to avoid a helix) to get down to a staging yard with sufficient vertical clearnace between the staging and layout above (i.e. greater than five to six inches). When I was planning the benchwork in 3rd Planit, I discovered that supporting the ramps without interferring with the main benchwork was going to be tedious. I also simulated some train running and discovered my trains would be out of site for nearly 2/3s of their run. I scrapped the whole idea.
My current plan will have accessable open top staging with only two staging turnouts on one end of the five-track through staging yard under scenery (six inches) but accessable from the layout edge. This is roughly a twice around plan with only one loop visible. Trains will still be out of site for nearly 1/2 the time, but visible for one complete trip around the room.
Colorado Ray I contemplated a similar arrangement (laps around the room to avoid a helix) to get down to a staging yard with sufficient vertical clearnace between the staging and layout above (i.e. greater than five to six inches). When I was planning the benchwork in 3rd Planit, I discovered that supporting the ramps without interferring with the main benchwork was going to be tedious. I also simulated some train running and discovered my trains would be out of site for nearly 2/3s of their run. I scrapped the whole idea. My current plan will have accessable open top staging with only two staging turnouts on one end of the five-track through staging yard under scenery (six inches) but accessable from the layout edge. This is roughly a twice around plan with only one loop visible. Trains will still be out of site for nearly 1/2 the time, but visible for one complete trip around the room. Ray
So if you look at my new layout plan, posted above in this thread, most of my staging is behind/under the scenery, not on a completely lower level from the main layout.
In some cases the staging is actually above the main layout level, just hidden by backdrops and other scenic elements.
One section of staging, a large multi track loop is competely below the visable layout, but is easily accessed from inside the loop (36" minium radius).
The staging is all accessed in different ways for maintenance, some areas have hatches, one has an access "aisle" behind/below the urban scenery, half of one staging yard will be in my workshop area.
In a perfect world I would have just put an aisle behind the whole layout, but I could not quite work that out and meet my other goals.
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL some people can build things knowing they are temporary, and others can not. Only once have I ever dismantled a layout with a plan to build a new one in its place. Every other layout demo was the result of a move. I could never build a layout already knowing in advance it might be temporary. I'm not suggesting that it be temporary. My suggestion is to build it as planned, and then if the layout as built tries to put too much in way too little space and proves to be an operational and maintenance nightmare, remove a siding or industrial spur here and there to simplify it. For sure, the OP should not build this layout knowing in advance that it will only be temporary, but there is no reason not to build this layout, recognizing in advance that some elements may later need to be removed or simplified. Rich
I'm not suggesting that it be temporary. My suggestion is to build it as planned, and then if the layout as built tries to put too much in way too little space and proves to be an operational and maintenance nightmare, remove a siding or industrial spur here and there to simplify it.
OK, let me re-phrase.
I would never build a layout expecting to make major changes latter.
There will no doubt be minor "running changes" as I built my new layout. And who knows, way down the road changes can happen.
But I have done this before, and planning is a primary occupational skill for me. And I know exactly what I want to accomplish, so for me at least, I suspect the first version of my layout will conform to the plan to a 90 plus percental, and changes would be a long way off, if ever.
I hate doing things "over".
ATLANTIC CENTRAL OK, let me re-phrase. I would never build a layout expecting to make major changes latter.
Meanwhile, the OP is now worried about his layout looking toy like when the proposed plan is anything but that.
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL OK, let me re-phrase. I would never build a layout expecting to make major changes latter. Agreed, but I don't consider removing a siding or industrial spur as a "major change". Meanwhile, the OP is now worried about his layout looking toy like when the proposed plan is anything but that. Rich
Agreed, but I don't consider removing a siding or industrial spur as a "major change".
Well, to quote Patrick Swayze in Road House "opinions vary".
I have visited hundreds of layouts, large and small. I have designed several dozen, most of which were built by myself or others.
I have been involved in operating sessions on a dozen or so layouts.
And I still don't consider myself a layout design expert - partly because I do have a few rigid ideas about what "works" and why.
But because it is also one of my goals, I think I understand the OP's display running goal pretty well.
In offering an alternative approach, I did not work out every detail, solve every problem, or maximize every feature.
My proposed concept can, and most likely would, end up being nearly as trackwork intense as his original plan.
But, I think it would allow slightly longer trains, provide more dramatic action with grades, bridges, tunnels, etc, and it might be a little more practical from a construction engineering standpoint.
Both his current plan, and my proposed concept will no doubt have a 1950's/1960's "old school" feel, which many today would call "toy like". And that's ok for what he wants to do.
Some would say the same about my new layout except for the fact that I stretched mine out spaciously over 1500 sq ft. My track plan could be done in a smaller space, with sharper curves, and it too would have that 1950's "Christmas Garden", display layout feel.
I like that about it.
It was with great reluctance that I offered any thoughts on this at all..... but I just can't stand all the mis-information about passenger cars.....
I meant that three levels are the complex part that will have to stay once he builds the benchwork.
OP has a lot of 2 car spurs and a yard with its longest track holding 6 cars, which is a shame considering the space has quite a bit of length.
Doughless richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL OK, let me re-phrase. I would never build a layout expecting to make major changes latter. Agreed, but I don't consider removing a siding or industrial spur as a "major change". Meanwhile, the OP is now worried about his layout looking toy like when the proposed plan is anything but that. Rich I meant that three levels are the complex part that will have to stay once he builds the benchwork. OP has a lot of 2 car spurs and a yard with its longest track holding 6 cars, which is a shame considering the space has quite a bit of length.
Agreed, that is why I suggested moving things around.
Hi Colorado Ray, your 2nd plan sounds interesting, could you post a track plan of it?
Also in your 1st plan what was so tedious about supporting the gradient ramps? Was it because you had 2 gradients, one up and one down? In my proposed plan I am trying to avoid that and have only 1 gradient
I want small industries with 2 car spurs.
I don't want a longer yard because I prefer to use that space for the dbl mainline that curves along the front of the baseboard. I'm looking forward to watching trains wind along it as I'm working the yard
MurBallHello, I'm looking for advice on my planned DC freelance HO round the room layout
MurBallThanks for any input
I assume that constructive comments about layout design is what you are looking for. None of us know how married you might be to your wants.
MurBall1930's to 70's diesels from Santa Fe and other US railroads along with rail fanning a few British steamers. It's designed for a room 2.3m or 7 feet 6 inches wide by 4.7m or 15 feet 5 inches long with a door in the bottom long wall.
Not factoring in any particular theme, era, operating plan, wants, etc. and just looking at maximizing track in a given space:
Using some quick math, and leaving 6 inches between your outer track and the wall; 7 feet can provide a radius of about 40 inches for the outer curve, about 37 inches for the middle, and 34 inches for the inner. And that could be at the point where there is the least amount of verticle separation. Great for passenger trains and excellent for freight trains. For a railfanning type of layout, you could run long equipment of any kind and it would look good. Keeping in mind that excessively broad radius curves...with easements....eats into the straight aways and keeps them short.
MurBallFor operations the layout will work as dead end branch line with a terminus station at the end. The other end in staging has a reverse loop for turning trains for the next session. So loop to point.
I'm confused. The train will be turned for the next separate op session? I think you mean that the return loop will provide an op session that is an out-and back-run. The op session is one train running from point to loop and back to point. (And either way, you have to turn the train by hand at the point to restage it).
I guess I don't understand the relationship between the reverse loop, staging tracks, and op plan as designed.
BTW, In North America, The BN and ATSF often never turned a train when using diesels. The loco just went backwards when going back to the origin point. Diesels eliminated the need for turntables and many reversing loops. In modern times, they double head two locos with each facing the opposite direction, even on branch lines. When they run around the train, they will always have a loco cab pointed forward.
1930's to 70's diesels from Santa Fe and other US railroads along with rail fanning a few British steamers.
Reversing loops and turntable are space hogs. If the steam train element of your wants is not a big part of ops but is really a part-time railfanning portion of the layout, you don't really need a loop at all...or a TT. Especially if you are going to have to step over the loop, or kick it while working at the bench.
Having staging on the lower level, I would want all of the turnouts near the front of the operating pit and not along the back wall, for both track maintenance and potential derailment fixes (especially if I'm backing whole trains onto staging tracks). You could also finger flick the switches and not have to install expensive switch machines since they are within easy reach.
So, given those contraints and not considering any scenic Wants at the start of planning, I would start the plan by drawing three loops around the room with 3 tracks 2 inches on center, then pull various tracks away from the walls to give space for the verticle differences and the main scenic elements; understanding that they may not all fit. Maybe that's where you started and this plan is the result after many iterations.
Also, there are curved turnouts that allow a yard to be started on a curve. In theory, you could have about a 12 foot long yard if you wanted to.
Hope this advice helps in some way.
Douglas makes a lot of great points.
I might have missed it, but what is your skill/experience level?
I am in the group of people that have a lot of experience building layouts, but I am very bad at track planning. When I get to actual construction, I will also be seeking a lot of advice from the group.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Doughless MurBall Hello, I'm looking for advice on my planned DC freelance HO round the room layout MurBall Thanks for any input I assume that constructive comments about layout design is what you are looking for. None of us know how married you might be to your wants. MurBall 1930's to 70's diesels from Santa Fe and other US railroads along with rail fanning a few British steamers. It's designed for a room 2.3m or 7 feet 6 inches wide by 4.7m or 15 feet 5 inches long with a door in the bottom long wall. Not factoring in any particular theme, era, operating plan, wants, etc. and just looking at maximizing track in a given space: Using some quick math, and leaving 6 inches between your outer track and the wall; 7 feet can provide a radius of about 40 inches for the outer curve, about 37 inches for the middle, and 34 inches for the inner. And that could be at the point where there is the least amount of verticle separation. Great for passenger trains and excellent for freight trains. For a railfanning type of layout, you could run long equipment of any kind and it would look good. Keeping in mind that excessively broad radius curves...with easements....eats into the straight aways and keeps them short. MurBall For operations the layout will work as dead end branch line with a terminus station at the end. The other end in staging has a reverse loop for turning trains for the next session. So loop to point. I'm confused. The train will be turned for the next separate op session? I think you mean that the return loop will provide an op session that is an out-and back-run. The op session is one train running from point to loop and back to point. (And either way, you have to turn the train by hand at the point to restage it). I guess I don't understand the relationship between the reverse loop, staging tracks, and op plan as designed. BTW, In North America, The BN and ATSF often never turned a train when using diesels. The loco just went backwards when going back to the origin point. Diesels eliminated the need for turntables and many reversing loops. In modern times, they double head two locos with each facing the opposite direction, even on branch lines. When they run around the train, they will always have a loco cab pointed forward. 1930's to 70's diesels from Santa Fe and other US railroads along with rail fanning a few British steamers. Reversing loops and turntable are space hogs. If the steam train element of your wants is not a big part of ops but is really a part-time railfanning portion of the layout, you don't really need a loop at all...or a TT. Especially if you are going to have to step over the loop, or kick it while working at the bench. Having staging on the lower level, I would want all of the turnouts near the front of the operating pit and not along the back wall, for both track maintenance and potential derailment fixes (especially if I'm backing whole trains onto staging tracks). You could also finger flick the switches and not have to install expensive switch machines since they are within easy reach. So, given those contraints and not considering any scenic Wants at the start of planning, I would start the plan by drawing three loops around the room with 3 tracks 2 inches on center, then pull various tracks away from the walls to give space for the verticle differences and the main scenic elements; understanding that they may not all fit. Maybe that's where you started and this plan is the result after many iterations. Also, there are curved turnouts that allow a yard to be started on a curve. In theory, you could have about a 12 foot long yard if you wanted to. Hope this advice helps in some way.
MurBall Hello, I'm looking for advice on my planned DC freelance HO round the room layout
MurBall Thanks for any input
MurBall 1930's to 70's diesels from Santa Fe and other US railroads along with rail fanning a few British steamers. It's designed for a room 2.3m or 7 feet 6 inches wide by 4.7m or 15 feet 5 inches long with a door in the bottom long wall.
MurBall For operations the layout will work as dead end branch line with a terminus station at the end. The other end in staging has a reverse loop for turning trains for the next session. So loop to point.
Hi Doughless, thanks again for your input. I thanked you for your previous input and then I explained my rationale in designing the yard etc as I have done. I hope you didn't think my answer was too dismissive. It certainly wasn't meant to be. As you quoted I am looking for any input and have thanked everyone so far for theirs.
So onto your latest input, some great points.
'Also, there are curved turnouts that allow a yard to be started on a curve. In theory, you could have about a 12 foot long yard if you wanted to.'
Great idea but I personnaly don't want to devote that much of my space to a yard.
'So, given those contraints and not considering any scenic Wants at the start of planning, I would start the plan by drawing three loops around the room with 3 tracks 2 inches on center, then pull various tracks away from the walls to give space for the verticle differences and the main scenic elements; understanding that they may not all fit. Maybe that's where you started and this plan is the result after many iterations.'
I did start with a similar idea using curves of various radii. Maybe I will revisit that stage using your helpful 3 loop idea.
'Having staging on the lower level, I would want all of the turnouts near the front of the operating pit and not along the back wall, for both track maintenance and potential derailment fixes (especially if I'm backing whole trains onto staging tracks). You could also finger flick the switches and not have to install expensive switch machines since they are within easy reach.'
This is a issue that I am worried about. So far I wasn't able to figure out a track plan that brought the staging turnouts to the front of the baseboard while also stopping the reverse loop from jutting out into the room more than it already does. Any ideas would be great here.
'Reversing loops and turntable are space hogs. If the steam train element of your wants is not a big part of ops but is really a part-time railfanning portion of the layout, you don't really need a loop at all...or a TT. Especially if you are going to have to step over the loop, or kick it while working at the bench.'
I will be railfanning all of my collection diesels and steam. I also want to use the turntable to reverse single diesel locos which are not part of a double head consist and some carriages like observation passenger cars. This might not be prototypical but it is something I want to do. The loops will be used for railfanning when I am not in the mood to operate. Also during an operating session the loops can to used to simulate travel between stops.
'I'm confused. The train will be turned for the next separate op session? I think you mean that the return loop will provide an op session that is an out-and back-run. The op session is one train running from point to loop and back to point. (And either way, you have to turn the train by hand at the point to restage it).
I guess I don't understand the relationship between the reverse loop, staging tracks, and op plan as designed.'
No problem let me explain my operating plan in more detail. I won't be turning trains by hand. Maybe you could say the op session will be 'one train running from point to loop and back to point.' I'm thinking of it more as running from loop to point and back to loop.
The reverse loop in staging will turn trains in staging ready for their next use. The turntable and run around track in the terminus station will be used to turn locos and some cars at that station.
At the start of an operating session a frieght train will enter from staging to drop and collect cars from the yard. It will then exit to staging.
Shunter will classify and local power will deliver and collect cars to industries around the layout. Shunter will classify cars ready for collection at the start of next session.
During this session a passenger train or two will enter from staging, visit the station on the double line, carry on up the last gradient to the terminus station. Here the loco and come cars will turn on TT (when nessessary) and carry on down the layout to staging. Here it will turn using the reverse loop. Ready for the next session.
A coal train of empties will enter the layout, probably travel direct to the mine, swap empties for fulls and take fulls to staging, turn on reversing loop, ready for the next session. Coal loads will then have to be swapped by hand.
There are various other options available and the layout could be used in different ways.
Thanks for your very detailed response and input Dougless. This thread has really helped me understand my wants and needs better. I'm now working a thinned version of the plan and will post when ready.
SeeYou190 Douglas makes a lot of great points. I might have missed it, but what is your skill/experience level? I am in the group of people that have a lot of experience building layouts, but I am very bad at track planning. When I get to actual construction, I will also be seeking a lot of advice from the group. -Kevin
He certainly does make great points. I am new to the hobby and built my first layout during lockdown. It is a table top and measures 1.5 m by 2.4m with a 2.5% gradient up to one highline loop which often crosses over the lower main lines. I'll try and insert a video here of a railfanning session.
https://i.imgur.com/iHHkLIe.mp4
No worries. Its tough to give advice here because it often conflicts with a person's Wants. Just trying to be dispassionate about the elements, which might help you to find out what Wants are causing more than their share of the issues.
Your original post said that ops are 1930's to 1970's diesels. But that you will be railfanning british steam. With railfanning, you really only need to have the trains run around the loops in a continous fashion. It seems like you are planning and designing for passenger ops more than what you let on in the beginning, like breaking down a passenger train at the point and turning each car with a TT. That's what I would call passenger ops, not really just railfanning.
MurBallI will be railfanning all of my collection diesels and steam. I also want to use the turntable to reverse single diesel locos which are not part of a double head consist and some carriages like observation passenger cars. This might not be prototypical but it is something I want to do. The loops will be used for railfanning when I am not in the mood to operate. Also during an operating session the loops can to used to simulate travel between stops.
I think its a great idea to have the loops build mileage in between destinations.
I only offered the prototypical explanation as to show how real railroads run their trains. Because they don't have help from the giant hand in the sky, they come up with efficient ways to get it done. You have the same goal, to not ever turn a car by hand for even a railfanning session, so showing what the real railroads do actually helps show us what we should do.
Having only one reversing loop on a layout tends to solve the problem only one half of the time. You'll be using the TT it seems...see below.
MurBallNo problem let me explain my operating plan in more detail. I won't be turning trains by hand. Maybe you could say the op session will be 'one train running from point to loop and back to point.' I'm thinking of it more as running from loop to point and back to loop. The reverse loop in staging will turn trains in staging ready for their next use. The turntable and run around track in the terminus station will be used to turn locos and some cars at that station. At the start of an operating session a frieght train will enter from staging to drop and collect cars from the yard. It will then exit to staging. Shunter will classify and local power will deliver and collect cars to industries around the layout. Shunter will classify cars ready for collection at the start of next session. During this session a passenger train or two will enter from staging, visit the station on the double line, carry on up the last gradient to the terminus station. Here the loco and come cars will turn on TT (when nessessary) and carry on down the layout to staging. Here it will turn using the reverse loop. Ready for the next session. A coal train of empties will enter the layout, probably travel direct to the mine, swap empties for fulls and take fulls to staging, turn on reversing loop, ready for the next session. Coal loads will then have to be swapped by hand.
Thanks for the explanation. As far as the reversing loop, "Loop to point to Loop" requires you to turn the train by hand when it reaches the point, run around the train to run the loco backwards, or to break down the train and turn each loco and car using the TT?
There is really no need to turn each car in a freight train since the cars don't care what direction they are facing, as well as most diesels. Passenger ops often requires the train cars to be in a specific order as they progress away from the loco, so turning a passenger train or its cars is why you need a reversing loop and a TT, (you don't want to run a F unit backwards for example) and a TT for steam locos.
If you are just railfanning the steam ops, you don't need to do that prototypical turning of the train. Just swap it by hand and set it up to head in the opposite direction for many laps.
MurBallThis is a issue that I am worried about. So far I wasn't able to figure out a track plan that brought the staging turnouts to the front of the baseboard while also stopping the reverse loop from jutting out into the room more than it already does. Any ideas would be great here.
Well, ideally you'd probably want the inner most of the three loops to be the one that heads down to staging. Keeping the track closest to the edge, and allowing the visible portion of the outer loops to have the broadest curves, an added benefit.
But that would likely take a complete redesign at this point to get the grades right, so I'm lost as to how to get it done with what's been posted.
"There is really no need to turn each car in a freight train since the cars don't care what direction they are facing"
Thanks Douglas, phew you saved me a lot of effort there,
"Loop to point to Loop" requires you to turn the train by hand when it reaches the point, run around the train to run the loco backwards, or to break down the train and turn each loco and car using the TT? "
Your list of 3 options is not exhaustive. Turning each car on a TT would obviously be a pain. My planned option when turning a passenger train in the terminus is to detach the loco from the train, drive it over to the TT and turn it if it is for example an F unit. I might turn another car such as an observation car on the TT as well. Then the loco can 'build' the train for the return journey, run around the baggage to the new front of train, place turned observation at new rear of train. Etc. Things can get as complicated or relaxed as the operator feels like. (in prototype observation cars were often run backwards behind the loco in these small terminus scenarios). Then the train sets off along the layout having been turned and looking well without a hand or reverse loop.
MurBall "There is really no need to turn each car in a freight train since the cars don't care what direction they are facing" Thanks Douglas, phew you saved me a lot of effort there, "Loop to point to Loop" requires you to turn the train by hand when it reaches the point, run around the train to run the loco backwards, or to break down the train and turn each loco and car using the TT? " Your list of 3 options is not exhaustive. Turning each car on a TT would obviously be a pain. My planned option when turning a passenger train in the terminus is to detach the loco from the train, drive it over to the TT and turn it if it is for example an F unit. I might turn another car such as an observation car on the TT as well. Then the loco can 'build' the train for the return journey, run around the baggage to the new front of train, place turned observation at new rear of train. Etc. Things can get as complicated or relaxed as the operator feels like. (in prototype observation cars were often run backwards behind the loco in these small terminus scenarios). Then the train sets off along the layout having been turned and looking well without a hand or reverse loop.
Well, you described turning the cars in response to me suggesting that you could run the diesels backwards, so I assumed that you were "wanting" to turn each car of a freight train. I certainly did not come up with that idea on my own.
My point is that you do not need a TT to "operate" a freight train, but you generally would want one to "operate" a passenger train when there is only one reversing loop...just like you have described. You've described passenger train ops at a terminus pretty well.
So when your first sentence talks about designing a layout for freight train ops but passenger train "railfanning", I was wondering why you need to have the elements of passenger train ops in the design.
I think you really want passenger train ops too? Is this right?
MurBall Colorado Ray I contemplated a similar arrangement (laps around the room to avoid a helix) to get down to a staging yard with sufficient vertical clearnace between the staging and layout above (i.e. greater than five to six inches). When I was planning the benchwork in 3rd Planit, I discovered that supporting the ramps without interferring with the main benchwork was going to be tedious. I also simulated some train running and discovered my trains would be out of site for nearly 2/3s of their run. I scrapped the whole idea. My current plan will have accessable open top staging with only two staging turnouts on one end of the five-track through staging yard under scenery (six inches) but accessable from the layout edge. This is roughly a twice around plan with only one loop visible. Trains will still be out of site for nearly 1/2 the time, but visible for one complete trip around the room. Ray Hi Colorado Ray, your 2nd plan sounds interesting, could you post a track plan of it? Also in your 1st plan what was so tedious about supporting the gradient ramps? Was it because you had 2 gradients, one up and one down? In my proposed plan I am trying to avoid that and have only 1 gradient
Since what goes up, must come down. My orignal plan had ramps from staging up and from the main level down to staging. This required that there were up and down ramps on each side of the room (two laps remember). Where the ramps "crossed" each other (actually side by side but looking from the edge they "crossed".
Here's the track plan for the main level and staging. This plan is to fit in a standard 20ft container and has 30 inch minimum radius curves. The ramps aren't shown in the plan views, but you can see them in the 3D picture. I hadn't even figured out how to support the ramps yet - hence no risers.
I'm not quite ready to upload the new plan since I'll start a seperate thread about that as construction gets closer. It's much less complex and has eased 32 inch minimum radius curves.