Advice on a track plan?

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bukwrm

Thanks for all the input. I think it is time to put version 1.0 up on the wall and start on version 2. Today I picked up a copy on "Track Planing for Realistic Operations" and started negotiations for more real estate. I think I can get a J shaped walkaround, 8X13X10 in length 4 feet wide all along the layout.

I think working on the entire plan but building one leg at a time is the best route. Back to the drawing board.

Sounds like you're on the right track. (pun intended, sorry[;)]) Once you read that book, you'll never look at track planning the same way. Good luck, and have fun.[8D]

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all the input. I think it is time to put version 1.0 up on the wall and start on version 2. Today I picked up a copy on "Track Planing for Realistic Operations" and started negotiations for more real estate. I think I can get a J shaped walkaround, 8X13X10 in length 4 feet wide all along the layout.

I think working on the entire plan but building one leg at a time is the best route. Back to the drawing board.

[leighant]

"Simple" mainline doesn't bother me, as long as at least part of it is hidden so the "roundy-round" is not so obvious. Making a double-end siding on the hidden back side of layout would allow trains to appear from staging coming in either direction.

I am not so sure reverse loops are necessary on what I will call the industrial/switching branch. A runaround track is--and you have it. Loco does not always have to be running "forward", especially on local peddler. If you do need to keep reverse loop, use as much trackage as possible of the industrial/switching branch as part of the loop, rather than makingnthe loop a separate entity. That will reduce a lot of the "blobiness" of the center of the layout, allow you to make it less wide and easier to reach.
I have seen prototype plats with real reverse loops, and I can imagine a realistic reason to have a loop such as this, it adds a lot of "blobiness" on an "island-table" layout such as you have, and stuck out in the middle of everything with other trackage crowded around it, I think the general effect is less realistic than if the loop were omitted.

Here is a very large "dream" layout plan (I don't actually have the space) with one obvious visible reverse loop and two inconspicuous ones.
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/abq.jpg
Karankawa is based on Galveston, Texas, which actually had a reverse loop around the turntable/roundhouse and service area, primarily to turn passenger trains.

"Belt" represents an interchange between the main railroad I am modeling and a belt line serving unmodeled industrial areas. But one of the tracks going into "Belt" makes an inconspicuous cutoff to the other side of a peninsula to form a big reverse loop.
Norton is a visible staging yard that represent everything north of the modeled portion of the railroad (Norton = "the north end"). Norton has an undisguised reverse loop, not made to represent anything realistic, just to turn trains so that the morning northbound passenger train to Chicago can be the afternoon southbound train that left Chicago the evening before.
Brownie Junction is modeled to look like a crossing and interchange connection with a foreign railroad, the Brownsville and Mexico. But using Brownie Junction forms an inconspicuous reverse loop. And since the mainline through the city of Santa Vaca is double tracked from Brownie Junction to Belt, the loops form an inconspicuous continuous dogbone oval so a train can run round and round unattended when desired. Normally for "hard" realistic operation, trains would be run point to point between Norton and Karankawa or 65th Street Yard.

Now for your yard. Looks short. Someone mentioned being able to run out of it only in one direction. You would have a somewhat more efficient and better operating yard in the space you have.
First, the overall length of the yard and all tracks is limited by the crossover from the mainline to the switching/industrial line at the left end of the plan. Reduces ALL yard tracks by the length of two turnouts (track switches). If you located that crossover "around the corner" on the left side of the plan rather than using part of the limited length available for yard, you would still be able to get trains between mainline and switching branch/yard without limiting yard length.
(See my article in Model Railroad Planning 2005 for hints on arranging crossovers to avoid S curve problems.)
Second, I notice your "assembly" track for trains is single-ended. This allows trains to run forward out of the assembly track in only one direction-- clockwise. If you want to run a train going in the counter-clockwise direction, you have to back it out of the yard before going forward. If you have a double-ended assembly track paralleling mainline and branch line, you can make up or breakdown a train going either direction. Your switcher classifying cars works from only one end of the classification tracks, but it can make up or break down a train of either direction.
Some people might wonder if you need a separate yard lead but I think your branch line functions as that lead, allowing you to switch the yard without blocking the main at least.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Very understandable about the real estate and wife issues, so the table size and shape is somewhat locked in. That's cool. Here's a thought, lift the yard and industrial elements from the plan and set them aside, you can put them back later. Focus on the main line, with a blank sheet. Try to get it to not follow the edge of the table. Consider a dogbone, a single circuit of track, and see how long you can make it by folding and climbing. If you conseal the loop ends with scenery, it will look like a double track main. Then work to put back the other elements.

If you do decide to cut out the middle, just remember, it gets old crawling in and out.

[Anonymous]

It is a walk around, 6X8. I agree entirely about the mainline being toy like. I would like to unwrap the whole layout into a U shaped around the walls dogbone but I just can't talk the wife out of the real estate. To be honest the room is so new I would hate to fasten anything to the walls.

I am an ex auto mechanic and reaching and fixing problems in the center of the layout is not as worrysome as doing the scenery in there. I thought about using liftout sections of foam so I could do the scenery on my workbench. The problem with that is hiding the seams. There is only about 4 square feet in the center that is beyond what I consider a comfortable 30 inch reach.

At one point I considered putting a hill in the center to block the view and to simplify reaching things. Now I am thinking about getting out the tape measure and seeing if I can go larger with an open center. Maybe even put the control panel in the center and a tall stool to run things from.

[Big_Boy_4005]

That is very interesting. It has what I would call realistic elements and "toy" elements blended together. The 8 x 8 table may be a bit cumbersome. Do you have access all the way around it? If so, you may want to consider a "U" shape, which would give you more length for your mainline, and cut down on long reach areas.

One of the things I would consider "toy" like is the simple mainline, which just follows the table edge. I think you can do better. Another element is the reverse loop. You have an easy way to include a second loop going in the opposite direction. This is a handy feature, which will allow your trains to change directions both ways.

The yard designs look good, and you have crossovers and runarounds which are realistic. All in all, a pretty good start, just don't ru***o build it. Better to think and tweak on paper, then build.

[Anonymous]

First of all is it a walk around?. I calculate that it is 6x8 feet. Is that right. You are going to have a lot of trouble getting to the middle of the table to do trackwork and scenery. Not to mention getting cars when a derailment happens. In my opinon the track is way to close to the edges of the table. Also I think you have a few to many reversing loops in there. Matbe not not sure. Really can't help you on a reconfigured track plan, but I would ask others for some help. Great try, I have to say as I will probably follow a track plan that is published. Bryan

[SpaceMouse]

I didn't get a picture.

[Anonymous]

Here goes nothing, the hobby room is done except for some minor touches to the paint and this weekend I will make my first trip to the not so LHS and start on the benchwork for my layout. Before I start laying track I would like some feedback on the plan. So I posted it on my website. http://bukwrm.com/cincinnati.htm It is N scale, Atlas code 55 track, the crossovers are all # 7 turnouts with #5's on the sidings. There will be a slight change in elivation from the front to the back but I am not enough of an artist to show what I have in mind.

Is it to crowded? To complicated? To simple? I plan on building it in 7 or 8 steps, the price of those switches really adds up. I am thinking of using manual switches with remote throws made with mechanics wire and plastic automotive tubing. Any thoughts?