Layout plan first try

[oleirish]

JARRELL: Here is something to think about"witch came first the scenery or the rail road in real life??[}:)]

OLE'IRISH(JIM)

[jacon12]

Ok.... back to the drawing board for a while. I sincerely appreciate all the suggestions, and I will stop where I am and reread Armstongs book. Maybe it will make more sense the second time, or the third. It's not like this is something I've just got to have done before the first of the year. If I have a good track plan in the next 2 months, or even longer, I'll be happy.
It's hard for me to say just exactly what I want in a layout since this is my first one. I love impressive scenery and I want to take all the time necessary to get that part right. I also want enough operations that the layout will at least be a bit of a challenge or else I'll get bored with it and be off to something else, or tear it down.
I'm beginning to realize that I might need to move the tracks on the long straight sections further back to put that yard I need closer to the front edge. To do that I guess I'll lose the track that is closest to the backdrop that I was thinking of going to a logging area. But, I see what you guys mean. It would be very tough to have that line at the back, two mainlines and then a yard.. all in a 2 foot space. Hiding portions of the rear most track is appealing too if I can do it with my poor tracklaying skills. By that I mean, if there is going to be a derailment it is going to be over behind a hill... BUT.... with the 2 foot wide bench it should be no problem to access it to fix it.
Guy, I had thought about a tunnel in the area of A-1 and another at O-2. The hillside at O-2 would come down and hide a good portion of the rear track only within the curve at that area. I wanted to elevate that back track slightly from the front one also for variation, but I'm not experienced enough to know if that is a good or a bad idea, what with trying to hide a good bit of the rear track. Don't worry about anything you said being over the top. I take all suggestions as a learning experience. When someone takes the time to consider your questions and tries to answer them, given the little information they're given, it is to be appreciated.
Chip, I love the ~look~ of the late 40s early 50s and that is the period I will try to model. Wouldn't you know it, and one of my TWO locomotives is an SD-40. But, like a lot of people I love the look and sound of steam.
Setting, man that's one I've not gotten firmly in mind. You know, I like many others love the tall timber and tall trestles and deep gorges etc. and originally thought that is the way I wanted to go. Then I saw a guys layout in, I believe MR magazine, and his was on a small shortline area in south Georgia of all places. South Georgia is almost perfectly flat, pine trees, some swampy places and that is about it geographically. But his layout was beautiful and I, being from middle Georgia coud readily relate to it.
So, I think it's time to kick back, reread Armstrong.. and rethink which way I'm going.
I appreciate your time and answer and I just may email you for a couple of plans if you don't mind.
GrandeMan, I don't know if I could modify that one or not my main problem being the ends of my layout are 4x4 feet. I know I could if I went to small radius curves but I'm trying to avoid that if possible. Hey, I appreciate it though. Any and all ideas are a help!
Ray, the more I think about it the more I see doing what you suggest will probably save me an aching back and broken scenery down the road. It is going to be a little hard to do detailed scenery out in the middle of my end tables, although I do want some industries there. It would be a lot easier to have them up front. That way I can appreicate any small detailed work I do which is gonna be lost in the middle of the table. I had designed a small peninsular at N-6 area and I may still go back for it. It was to be about 2 feet wide and 4 feet long and I still may go back for it. Ray, I appreciate the encouragement.
Crandell, I'm bringing everything to a halt for a while til I reready the Armstrong book. In the meantime I've got track laid out on the bench work and I'm going to try at least two differnt approaches. I had not thought of the cardboard inclines but I may try that two. Heck, I've never built an incline so now is the time.
Buddy, I appreciate it! Thanks for the ideas.
Jarrell

[selector]

All thoughful and earnest advice, fellas.

Jarrell, if you have the patience and stomach for it, you could spend a couple of nights devising three different track plans. They should differ only slightly from one of the other two, and markedly from the third. Here is the tough part; build them as a temporary set-up, complete with turnouts and grades (use cardboard, it's only for a few days). Try one for a few days, make notes, pros and cons. Then rip it up and build the next one, and so on. When you are done, in about two weeks, you will have a graphic depiction of what worked best for you.

You can't get much more methodical than that. If you read Chip's suggested book first, and then plan the three layouts, you will necessarily identify the best one for you.

[rayhippard]

Jerrell, If you want to keep the "dogbone" I would suggest placing the double track mainline as close to the backdrop as possible. This will give you room for a small yard and industries in the front of the layout. When you detail these, it will be easier to work on and to see the effect. As stated before, it will also make switching easier and you may want to use Caboose Industries manual throws for your turnouts. Again, easier and lest cost and IMHO more fun. I agree with "grande man" that two trains passing on close double tracks is a great site. Don't worry about covering all the bases on this first layout. You are doing fine so far. Later you may be able to add a small peninsula from either straight section coming out into the room so you could add more industries for more operation. It doesn't have to be very wide or long as you just want to have some dead end spurs to the customers of the railroad.
Ray----------Great Northern fan.

[grandeman]

Jerrell, could something like this be modified to fit? I'm thinking stretching it where needed and adding a runnaround track on the back wall maybe. It would be tough to get rid of the running in circles syndrome though.

[grandeman]

I'd get rid of the spur in the corner and make the back track run right along the wall. A ridge that you could see/reach over (8-12" high) could be run the length of the layout for use as a veiw block/scenery. This will get rid of the "running in circles" effect. You'd need a tunnel or pass at each runaround. Two small towns could be modeled or a town and a distant industry. This design would keep all the yard trackage close to you for manual turnout control. Also, consider the double main line. Trains passing each other on parallel tracks is a cool effect.

[SpaceMouse]

Hi,

Everytime I post a layout, my good friend Jetrock asks me what are my givens and what are my druthers. The givens are those things that you can't change. The layout shape in this case. The scale.etc. Your druthers are what you would like to see or do with your layout. Period, roadname, type of layout, setting, scenery.

While point to point layout are fine, most provide a way to turn the train around to make the return trip. That can either be a loop, a three point turn or a turntable. You have a couple spurs for industries. Most point to points would feature two destinations like towns or say a coal mine to a power plant.

With a layout your size, there will be considerable expense, so you want to get it right. By getting it right, you not only want it to work, you want it to be challenging enough that you are interested in running it.

John Anderson's Track Planning for Realistic Operations is a good place to start because not only does is show you the fundamental like how to get a car into a siding, it explains why the railroads do what they do. It helps with putting the layout in perspective. I have read this book cover to cover twice now. The first time I really didn't get it. The second time I got it a little better, but I'm going to read it for a third time before I build my larger layout. I may read it twice more.

You have plenty of room to build a spectacular layout. Pick up a copy of some layout plans and study them. Heck I have some extras, shoot me an email and I'll send you a couple. There are a few that will fit right into your space.

Anyway, start by listing your givens and druthers.

[Anonymous]

Jarrell,

I presume you have the Armstrong book on track planning??? My question is what type of railroad do you envision in your space??? Scenery??? Type of trains??? Do you know what scenes you want to model??? What is your balance of scenery to operations???

It seems to me that there are two basic type of layout designs (with a huge number of variations): The spagehetti bowl and the point to point. Most layouts are a combination of the two ideas.

The spaghetti bowl is named for its appearance. Most layouts have some of this look. It is mainly where the modeler crams track everywhere it will fit. Because there is always limited space this is a common practice. Even very spacious layouts are still way too full of track when compared to the prototype. The problem with the spaghetti bowl is when you try to scenic it. How do you make it look good??? For example in your plan you have less than a foot between the two tracks in spots, this may be hard to scenic convincingly.

Point to point tries to mimic what a real railroad does. The modeler tries to avoid running through the scene more than once. single tracks running from destination A to B. In a true point to point there is no return loop and no possibility of a loop to watch trains go around. Most modelers who do point to point designs include some sort of loop provision to watch trains run. These layouts are easier to scenic because there is less track and they mimic the real thing, hence look more realistic. Many modelers pick scenes they like from real railroads and then try to shrink them down to fit on the layout. This tends to improve realism.

Observations:

1. You might want to pull your track in from the front of the layout a bit.

2. Switches in the back, in the corner will be hard to reach.

3. Try hiding your turnback tracks in tunnels on at least one of your ends.

4. You might consider closing the circle on each end and running both ways on a single or double track mainline track through the straight sections of the layout. It would give you more possibilities scenically speaking and would avoid the spaghetti bowl look of too much track in a small space. The disadvantage is no real long trains and no "kick back and let em run" without automation. The double track eliminates this problem.

5. Consider hiding a lot of the back track so that you have a single track through the scenes..

Hopefully this is not too over the top....

[jacon12]

Tom, I sure do appreciate you telling me how to get rid of those numbers, I've been hunting it for a while now. Yes, on the right hand side I do have enough room to get down that side of the table.
Thanks!
Jarrell

[tstage]

Jarrell,

To get rid of the track text, do the following:

Right click mouse
Click Properites
Click "Text" tab
Uncheck "Display Article Nos." box
Gone

I see you extended the L after all. Will you still have enough space to squeeze behind the layout? I like the fact that you're using 22"R curves.

Tom

[jacon12]

I'm no good with a pencil and compass so I thought I'd try Atlas' software and I sure could use advice from you guys. Below is a screen capture of the plan thus far (does anyone know how the heck you turn off the distracting track piece information within the program?)

I want to add a turnout at O-8 like the one at G-2 to service businesses in that part of the layout. The turnout at H-1 is for the logging operation at O-1. I don't have much space for much of an incline but maybe I can get 3 inches? Or will I be better off to turn the corner with the track so that I can get more climb?
I would like to somehow work in a small yard of one or two tracks at e,f,g-1for the logs (otherwise, what would I do with them once they are brought down?), but I'm not sure how to lay the track for that or if it is possible.
I would also like to work in a turnout in the area of E-2 so that I can put track for other small industries at B and C-2. Am I pushing this area to much?
I would also like to start elevating the mainline track at F-2 and continue around the dogbone clockwise and have a tunnel at A-1 for the lower track (not yet shown) that would go toward the corner at A-1.
This is my first try at a layout, as most of you know, and I'd sure appreciate any ideas, suggestions, no- you- can't -do -that, or whatever.
Jarrell