So we are just now breaking ground for a new shop. 50 years it's taken me. 50 years to get my dream layout space! But it's finally happening. We've had a few layouts in garages here and there. This will actually be our 6th but by far the biggest. I'm now second guessing myself. Everyone says the rule for turnouts is "the biggest you can fit." I'm building all the turnouts by hand with FastTracks and have plans for #12's everywhere. The entire layout including yards will be #12's.
I could run #8's or even #9's.....but in the end by the time you space things out so you have them look correct, it doesn't save you much if any room. And I'm running long cars. Lot's of 72'-85' passenger cars as well as freight.
So the question is.....is there such thing as too big? Will it look ridiculous to have #12's everywhere? What's everyone think?
To give perspective, the main yard is approximate 10 tracks wide and runs about 25'-30' long.
Just wanting to make sure I'm not over thinking this whole thing. You build layouts and tear them up and always think "Ok I learned this and that and this so the next layout will be better!" The refinement gets to grow as you build each subsequent layout. So I'm just trying to do this right.
Thanks for any opinions and advice!
Mike
Hi Mike,
Congratulations on finally building your shop!
As for the size of yard turnouts, if you can fit #12s why wouldn't you use them? I think they would look great. I love the look that long turnouts will give you.
There are some technical advantages to using #12s. I think the main one would be the reduction in problems created by 'S' curves.
I wonder if your concern about appearances comes from seeing too many model layouts with condensed yard ladders. Very few modelers have the necessary space to use large yard turnouts but you do.
The only reason I can think of for using smaller turnouts would be to make space for some other feature which is key to your theme. However, as you pointed out, the yard won't be significantly shorter. Personally I'd rather have the long curves. Much more prototypical.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Thank you Dave! Definitely looking forward to it!
That was sort of my thought was the bigger less angled turnouts would look good but then as you said.....everything I've done in the past and seen for the most part is all #6's or maybe #8's. And mocking it up on the kitchen table with the bigger turnouts just kind of messed with my head a bit. I even went back into my Anyrail design and redrew me design with the smaller turnouts and I really didn't gain that much.
Guess I just needed to confirm it wouldn't look off.
Thank you for your input!
The biggest consideration is how much shorter the last track of the ladder will be. And will you be taking space away from the ends for broad curves. If laid out right all ten ladder tracks will be the same length.
Congratulations on the layout space. Not many lone wolfs can have long ladders.
Pete.
Pete,
Yes definitely lucky to have finally gotten to a point I have some room.
I will have to relook but I think the shortest end of the ladder was pushing 15' and when I redrew things with the 8's that only increased slightly. Not enough to warrant another $150 template for the hand done switches.
I also learned to have some straight section of about 6" before the curves. I think on our first layout we went from 6's in the yard right into a curve and it was a disaster. I think I have a good foot or two before each curve on this.
Good points for sure! Thanks for the good words and other stuff to consider. There's so much it's overwhelming!
I say, go for it.
Rich
Alton Junction
Does Anyrail draw easements for curves? I only run up to 70 foot passenger cars, but easements make them look so much better going into my 32 and 36 inch mainline curves. My long wheelbase steam locomotives run better with easements too.
Our club built a staging yard double ended using only #6 right hand turnouts. It gave us five semi equal length tracks that could hold 48 hoppers, a cabin, and two 2-10-0 locomotives with 1 long and 1 short tender without fouling any turnout.
Mike, my first question is what radius curves are you using on the mainline? What is the system minimum radius curve?
I will just assume for now that all curves will have easements.
Operationally, #6's and #8's are large enough of any of our models.
From an appearence standpoint, a #8 and a #10/#12 don't look that much different. And a #8 pretty much exceeds any closure or substitution radius curve you would likely use.
I'm building a new layout right now, 36" minimum radius, most curves will be larger, more in the low 40's range.
One other concern I would have is the operational length of a #12 frog with NMRA standard clearances?
I will be using a combination of #8's and #6's just about everywhere.
My main freight yard will be about 25' long, eight tracks.
While I have hand layed track on several previous layouts, I will be using mostly code 83 Atlas Custom Line turnouts and Atlas flex track on this one. With a few special pieces from Walthers (slip switches) and PECO (9 degree crossings).
I would use #6's in a freight yard, maybe #8's in a passenger terminal/yard, and save any larger sizes for the mailine.
Here is my new layout, about 1500 sq ft.
Sheldon
Anyrail does do easements and it's definitely nice for that. The tightest curve we have is 50". So passenger cars and some of the longer locomotives like the Big Boy should be happy. That's originally why I decided on 12's was to make all the curves smooth and gentle.
And that's actually what I'm used to is the 6's in the yards. This is just a whole new ballgame and it makes me sweaty lol!
Sheldon,
That's a nice looking setup for sure! I like the design of that for sure.
So all curves will have easements and the minimum radius is 50". I think some are 51" but same ballpark.
I have used Atlas turnouts for years but our last layout was all 6's and 8's from them and they gave us such trouble I swore I'd never use them again. So I bought the #12 plate for FastTracks and started building turnouts. I've opted for the route of going non-hinged as well to eliminate any issues. They are beautiful for sure and I'm excited to get them on the boards! I've got about 80% done so I'm still working on a few more to finish up.
Since I won't go back to Atlas..... I'd have to buy another master plate for 8's.... and that's another $150. That it's my main reason for going completely with 12's as well.
5150WS6 Sheldon, That's a nice looking setup for sure! I like the design of that for sure. So all curves will have easements and the minimum radius is 50". I think some are 51" but same ballpark. I have used Atlas turnouts for years but our last layout was all 6's and 8's from them and they gave us such trouble I swore I'd never use them again. So I bought the #12 plate for FastTracks and started building turnouts. I've opted for the route of going non-hinged as well to eliminate any issues. They are beautiful for sure and I'm excited to get them on the boards! I've got about 80% done so I'm still working on a few more to finish up. Since I won't go back to Atlas..... I'd have to buy another master plate for 8's.... and that's another $150. That it's my main reason for going completely with 12's as well. Mike
Thank you for the kind words about the layout. In the early stages of benchwork now.
I am always fascinated by these reports of trouble with Atlas turnouts. I have been using them since the introduction of the code 83 line with no issues.
But anyway, I learned to hand lay track and turnouts at a young age, as a teen. The layout my father helped me build was all TruScale, some of it self gauging roadbed and turnout kits.
Then I learned more from the masters at the Severna Park Model Railrod Club, and built several layouts that way, without any jigs. Just drawing the frog angle on a piece of wood and going to work.
The last few layouts have been Atlas, no energy for building 140 turnouts. No issues. And, honestly I like the wiring features of the Atlas.
I know you can do that with Fast tracks or even the way I was taught, but it is even more work.
So now days I only use those skills for special trackwork, and have even learned how to bend Atlas turnouts into large radius curved turnouts.
What are you using for roadbed? I prefer Homasote.
Just keep in mind, the substitution radius of a #8 is 110", twice your working radius.
Good luck and congrats on being able to do this.
I would tend to use some smaller turnouts in a yard, just for the look. $150.00 cost when you consider everything as a percentage is nothing.
If I had more space, I would make my minimum radius larger (48" as recommended by Paul Mallery) before I would go much bigger on turnouts.
#6's are large enough for any yard. I think you might find a great many prototype yards are built mostly with #8's.
Ok, with more space I might be inclined to make all mainline turnouts #8's and #10's rather than my current #6's and #8's. But beyond that I don't see a gain. Some selective compression in our scenery is a plus in my eyes, not a minus.
We started having issues with the Atlas towards the end of our last build. I think that was when they were retooling or got bought out or something. I reached out to them directly and they stated they were having production issues but didn't go much past that. We ran them for years as well but unfortunately the last couple years really left a sour taste in my mouth for sure and now I'll be hard pressed to go back. I've gotten pretty quick at the Fasttracks and you can sort of set up a production line. I can whip through a dozen turnouts on a good night.
For the roadbed I'm still not sure. Homasote probably. I'm more concerned at this point about the layout of the board. It's going to be a shelf type setup with a couple of islands that go out into the middle of the room. The wildcard there is I use a wheelchair to get around. So I'm trying to design this for when my dad(80) isn't around to still be viable and workable for me.
So there won't be any section that's farther than I can reach.....about 28". Some of the islands are 4' wide but I can get to both sides so that helps. But trying to determine the best height and such adds to all that. For me in the chair it's going to look great if it's 30" off the ground but all the lazy walkin folks :) that come to see the layout won't have as good as perspective. But it's my layout. So I'm going to build it how it works for me. I might just have to get a set of old chairs for people to ride around in to view the layout. My biggest concern is the wiring on the benchwork. I need to be able to access all the wiring without having to fall out of the chair to do it. So I'm working on a flip down front fascia that will open up exposing all the wiring. Then all the leads from the turnouts, signals and power wires will attach to that front flip down front. It will mean some long leads on some of the stuff but it will allow me to run power blocks and unhook things to diagnose any issues. But it should work out. Hopefully lol. Again, not having a layout of this size really brings up some crazy issues that I never thought I'd have. But it will all work out and I'm willing to do some trial and error and rebuild if needed. The best part I'm looking forward to is a section of track that will model the area near San Clemente, CA where the track runs right along the beach. I'm going to have a cut away ocean scene where you can see into the ocean as well as surfers and waves on top. Should look cool if I can pull it off. It'll be nice to run trains again vs just collecting them!
Mike, to be clear, Atlas has not been bought out in any way, but they did move production to China several decades ago. Yes, there have been a few runs with problems and it is likely they have moved from one factory to another at least once.
In my case most of the turnouts I have were bought more than a decade ago for a layout rebuild that did not happen. Then we moved. BUT, I have bought more recently and examined them closely, measured them, etc. Current product matches and seems on par with older (10-20 years ago) product.
PECO and Walthers make nice stuff too, but it is full of features I don't want or like, that I feel I am paying for in their higher prices. Like little snap point springs that have to be removed for switch motors.
I recently visited a layout built in an attic, and built really low, like 24" to 30". I actually liked it. He had wide aisles and lots of chairs to sit in.
I finally settled on 40" to 45" height for most of my layout with one section getting up around 50".
20 years ago I built two thirds of a 1000 sq ft double deck layout, and decided I hated it. The only time in my life I abandoned a layout plan mid stream.
Wiring - your plan should work, I know a custom layout builder who does that with most of his projects.
I still run DC, and use a very complex fully integrated Advanced Cab Control System with detection, signals, CTC, wireless radio throttles and progressive cab assignments. 90% of the wiring is done on the work bench and then modules are mounted under the layout and connected to track and turnout drops as well as control panels. Operators are not tied to control panels because all inputs are push buttons are duplicated on mutliple panels for walk around control.
When the dispatcher is on duty, operators have less buttons to push than DCC operators.
If you looked close at my plan you may have noticed it is not a shelf layout at all. Vertually all of it is 3-4 feet deep at a minimum. But the 90% of the visible operation focused track is right down front in the first 2 feet.
My desire for depth is about scenery and modeling more "non railroad" features than many people these days.
Roadbed, I prefer this:
https://www.cwhomaroad.com/
My other layout building preference is NO foam, I hate the stuff and don't see the point. My layouts have all been a combination of table top and open grid with hard shell scenery.
What you don't see on my plan is the hidden staging that is largely "behind" the visible portion, under the scenery as it rises away from the viewer. The mainline actually goes twice around the room to travel thru a series of small staging yards, only one of hich is truely "below" the layout.
There will be staging for about 30 trains, most able to be 20-25 feet long.
And, as I have suggested, I would use some smaller turnouts in the yards if I were you.
Will there be much in the way of sidings or industries? Is that aspect of modeling of interest to you? Another place were smaller turnouts are in order.
My layout is designed for three specific modes of operation:
Mainline running in opps session mode with CTC operations.
Mainline display layout running with 5 trains able to run on deticated loops with no conflicts.
Industrial switching, 80% of which does not effect mainline operation and is basically an "Industrial Switching Layout" tucked into the bigger layout.
Take care and good luck with you project.
Yes that's right, they moved everything to China. I couldn't remember what was going on but knew it had changed some things for them. I'm sure they are back up to snuff now for sure.
Just for the machanics of things I won't do anything hidden. In talking to friends and just getting peoples opinion I've got two of everything. So there are things to do basically. I talked to so many guys that built one yard and then had no where to really run cars and stage. So I've got two passenger stations, two yards, one massive one smaller. So there are places to go and things to do. I have about 10 sidings. Fortunately what works is my dad likes to spend most of his time in the yards. Pushing cars around and shuttling things here and there. I like to run the big freight and passenger stuff. So it's a nice balance. Now if I could just keep my 80 year old dad to observe the yard limits we'd be set! LOL!
I think I've decided for now to keep the 12's. It's going to come down to looks. I have found that you can design and refine for months on the pc.....but when it comes down to it, I want the track to look right to the eye. Not what looks right on paper. So I think we will get all the benchwork done and then lay it out and have a look. If it looks completely ridiculous then I'll swap out the switches for some smaller ones. Since I've got the majority of them built I'm out nothing if I keep them. And no biggie if I need to order the plate for the 8's and get to building those.
We are doing signals as well. Which this will be my first. And I've gotten rid of a lot of our double track just to make it more interesting. To me it's boring just to pass every train and not have to work out getting point to point with some traffic. I do have several good stretches of double for passing but for the most part a lot of it is single. I'm working with Kevin Rudko from Signal Logic Systems and he's designing a custom signal set up for me.
I'm sort of with you on the foam. We used it on the last two layouts but I sort of like the old school as well. We will see what we use. I haven't even brought that up to the table yet and figured that out. Other than a small version of downtown San Diego and some sky scrapers, we really don't have anything else figured out. A forest area with cabins and 10 sidings to play around with.
Good luck with your build and it would be cool to see progress! I'm hoping the build on this shop goes quickly. Fingers crossed! Mike
Single track operation is great if you have the room to make it look and feel right. And the amount of room that takes is driven by train length.
The time period I model (1954) was the high water mark for double track and long trains are one of my must haves. Double track is also a win for the hands off display running.
I get your view on hidden track, lots of people feel that way these days. For me it has never been an issue. My very first layout built by my father had hidden staging sidings behind a mountain and we had them wired so they could be operated blindly, it worked great. Guess he was ahead of his time in modeling.
My 10 track sub end staging is visible in my workshop area and access to the others is good to fair. Only one of the three thru yards has a few hard to reach areas.
My benchwork will be built with a combination of rear aisles and pop up hatches, and be strong enough to support me. One of the reasons for no foam.
When I get just a little more benchwork up I do plan on posting the progress.
Take care,
5150WS6 Will it look ridiculous to have #12's everywhere?
The everywhere part is where I might question it. Yes a real railroad might have a yard with No.12 turnouts, but then the mainline might have No.22 (or bigger?) turnouts and very broad curves - equivalent to like 10 or 12 feet radius in HO. I would think it would look better if it was proportional - like No. 12s on the mainline, No. 6s for the yards and industry spurs etc.
A word of caution with regards to AnyRail and FastTracks templates.
The developer of AnyRail had opted (for whatever reason) to use a minimum turnout length for the FastTracks turnouts.
How he derived that length is beyond me, but nobody on god's green earth is building FT turnouts that short!
This means that you will be hard pressed to match the real world to what's in the AnyRail editor, or its printout.
#FYI
YouTube Channel
Website
wjstix 5150WS6 Will it look ridiculous to have #12's everywhere? The everywhere part is where I might question it. Yes a real railroad might have a yard with No.12 turnouts, but then the mainline might have No.22 (or bigger?) turnouts and very broad curves - equivalent to like 10 or 12 feet radius in HO. I would think it would look better if it was proportional - like No. 12s on the mainline, No. 6s for the yards and industry spurs etc.
TrainzLuvr A word of caution with regards to AnyRail and FastTracks templates. The developer of AnyRail had opted (for whatever reason) to use a minimum turnout length for the FastTracks turnouts. How he derived that length is beyond me, but nobody on god's green earth is building FT turnouts that short! This means that you will be hard pressed to match the real world to what's in the AnyRail editor, or its printout. #FYI
richhotrain TrainzLuvr A word of caution with regards to AnyRail and FastTracks templates. The developer of AnyRail had opted (for whatever reason) to use a minimum turnout length for the FastTracks turnouts. How he derived that length is beyond me, but nobody on god's green earth is building FT turnouts that short! This means that you will be hard pressed to match the real world to what's in the AnyRail editor, or its printout. #FYI Interesting point. Rich
Interesting point.
This is why I have never had any faith in track planning software.
When I hand draw a track plan, turnouts are laid out and spaced based on frog angle and known typical length. That has always been close enough to allow proper construction.
I am very appreciative of Robert using his CAD skills to turn my layout plan into a graphic that is easy to publish. Becuase he is a skilled professional CAD draftsman, and I am a skilled "old school" draftsman, I had no trouble designing the layout and he had no trouble transfering that to CAD.
I played with several commercial track planning softwares over the years, never saw where any of them would be worth the time it takes to learn them.