stuinstra wrote:OK here it is. The layout was in the Jan. 06 issue of Railroad Model Craftman. Pages 78-83here is the layout pic.
Thank you for posting this, it will give me some more insight. I think the curves are too tight for what I am doing, but it does have some potential with modifications.
Thanks for the promptness on posting,
Jeff
jecorbett,
Thank you for the excellent information about this. The layout will really be based in the 50's & 60's. It will not be completely based on one particular year. I like the buildings, cars and trains from that time frame and will just try and seperate them out as I can.
My collection is mostly diesels and I have a couple MDC/Roundhouse small steam locos. One Athearn Genesis 2-8-2, which is my largest steam engine at this point. The 2-10-2 mentioned before would be a future possibility but at this time I do not have one currently.
I like your idea of putting another reversing crossover and will consider that in my revisions.
Thank you for your input,
I'll add my 2 cents here. You said you wanted a 60s era layout so you could run steam and diesel. Actually the transition era is generally regarded the post war period up to 1960. By 1960, steam was all but gone from most railroads. There were probably a few short lines that held out but those were the exceptions.
I also read that you were going to run small locomotives such as 2-8-2 and 2-10-2. A 2-10-2 is a large locomotive. One of the largest non-articulated locomotives ever built. Real railroads began having problems on curves once driver sets went to 10 and 12 wheeled configurations which brought on the advent of articulated locomotives with 2 sets of drivers that could pivot independently. The manufacturers might be able to make 2-10-2 locos that can negotiate tight curves but I think you would be better off staying with steam with 6 wheeled driver sets or smaller. They will operate much more reliably on 24" curves.
I might consider creating a reversing crossover on the right side of the plan. You have one on the left which can reverse trains from counterclockwise to clockwise on your dogbone plan but you can't reverse the other way without backing up around the reversing loop. You might find all your trains end up going the same way. A second rerersing section would add flexibility to your operating scheme and could easily be added.
The changed plan is almost done, I am not sure if I like it as well. I will be posting it soon and you guys can comment on it. Most of the changes worked very well. The problem I am having is the the top of the loop on the left where the tracks lead off to the right in the city section. I can not seem to be able to put a passing track in there without making the curves too tight or have an "S" curve there. Anyway I will keep working on it and then post either tomorrow or Saturday.
Stuinstra,
Let me know which magazine you saw it in. I would be interested in seeing how they did it.
I think that point to point layouts are nice if you want to continually switch. I like to have a train just run around some times also. That is why I have tried to combine the best of the two.
Best regards,
zeis96 wrote:Hey, I've been on here almost a year and I've finally helped someone! My job here is done! I haven't looked at my track plan for a while, been working a lot. I'm sure I'll have some more changes to it. I like how you have your industries set up on the left. What program did you use to design yours? I'll be keeping an eye on this so maybe it will help me as well.Aaron
Aaron,
I just used the the Atlas RTS 7 and then exported a bmp file and imported it into MS Paint to do the scenery and buildings. It took some time but it gives a good overall look of the layout. I will try and get an updated drawing up this weekend.
Let me know if you need ideas also,
hi
Simisal,
I do plan on moving one day again, that is why I want to build this in modules. That will be my next task after I nail down the design. The modules will make it easier to move to another place.
To Selector and everyone else,
Thank you for all the input and I am greatfull for the suggestions. Just a little history about me, I have been doing trains for about 34 years. My dad got me started in them and either he or I have had a layout for most of that time. The layout I am designing now will be my biggest venture yet but it will be done to where I can hopefully build it in modules for easy mobility if there is such a thing.
I am trying to use up most of my track, accessories, buildings and trains that I have collected over the years. I have been upgrading to DCC and do not mind replacing no.4 switches with no.6 switches. All of my track is code 83 Atlas and the switches are the custom line type.
The DCC unit I have is the MRC Prodigy Advanced and I will put in some power blocks in the lay out. Most of my locomotives have been converted to DCC except for some older Athearns that I think will stay DC and just be looked at or run on a small track around the Christmas tree.
Keep all the suggestions and input coming. I am always learning no matter what stage of the game or age I am.
You guys and gals if out there are great!
Thank you again,
Paul W. Beverung wrote: Many turntables had 2 leads to them. One for in bound and one for out bound.
Many turntables had 2 leads to them. One for in bound and one for out bound.
That's true, but I'm not sure this yard is big enough or busy enough to justify it.
As for the stub siding going over a bridge. Here in Weatherford Texas the Weatherford, Mineral Wells and Northeastern had a wye that went out over a bridge and dead ended. I think that it was fetured in a write up some where as " The Bridge That Went Nowhere".
Which goes to prove that it was an anomoly. This is not common practice, but there is a prototype for just about anything if you look for it. It's not wrong, just unusual.
Idaho Trains: If you were to round off the corners of the bench work it would make it easer to get around. That kind of helps with tight space also. Many turntables had 2 leads to them. One for in bound and one for out bound. As for the stub siding going over a bridge. Here in Weatherford Texas the Weatherford, Mineral Wells and Northeastern had a wye that went out over a bridge and dead ended. I think that it was fetured in a write up some where as " The Bridge That Went Nowhere."
Keep us posted on your progress.
Idaho Trains wrote: pcarrel, You have made some great points,
pcarrel,
You have made some great points,
Thanks, just trying to help.
I will take them and see about making some changes.
Like I said, it's your layout. I think you have a good basic concept. It just needs tweeked. I redrew my own plan almost twenty timesbefore I got a good workable one.
I figure this is about the maximum size layout that I will be able to build and complete.
That is an important concideration that most people miss or dismiss. It's good to think about it up front though. It gives you a goal thats attainable.
The extra leg that comes off the turn table and connects to the main is just and easy way to get to the turntable. After looking at that I could remove it and do something else there.
When designing a layout it's a delicate balence between creating a plan that is so easy to operate that it takes all the challenge out of it, and designing one that is a constant headache to deal with. I think that losing that lead will make it a bit tougher to operate without creating nightmare. You want just enough challenge that you have to plan your moves. I think adding an industry, or even a small shop with a RIP track, would be a better solution then the one you have now, but thats just me.
I will see about making another passing area on the left so that switching can be done without blocking the main.
Rule #1 of layout planning.......never block the main unless theres no other option. Real RR's don't normally do this, and neither should we. The exception to this would be those very rare circumstances where the prototype does.
I was looking at the reach and pretty much I think everything can be reached from one area or another. I know it might be a little bit of a stretch in some areas, hopefully those areas will not need to be reached that often.
Just make sure you keep the scenery low in those areas that you need to reach over. Nothing like trying to reach over a grove of 50ft tall trees to reach a derailed train 3ft back behind them!
I will see about adding another six inches to the isle way where possible.
I don't think theres any way you could go wrong by doing that. It's just a smart move!
The stub track where the bridge will be changed and I will do something else there.
Maybe something on one of the plans I've done will inspire you. Here's a link to some of them: http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/pcarrell/Track%20Plans/
I appreciate the help and insight into this, Jeff
Not a problem!
You might also concider someplace on the layout that you can have some staging so you have a connection to the outside "world". A track running off the edge of the layout where you can connect a cartridge holding a train would give you that connection without really changing your plan much. You could then make several cartridges holding a couple different trains so that you have some real variety without sacrificing layout space and without a second level and so on. Just a thought......
Keep us posted of the changes, OK?
Jeff (Idaho), others have made suggestions that you are obviously taking seriously...very happy to hear that you have not gotten married to any plan just yet.
I like what I see, basically, but my comment is one that will address the future...yours, to be exact. This layout will be a substantial undertaking. Yes? And, once it is up and running, you are not going to be keen to want to build another one any time soon, nor will you be especially pleased if you find some limitations that are not apparent to you now...with or without our input. So, I ask that you realistically consider your future needs and interests, ones that you almost dare not think about in view of your current plans and rolling stock/locomotive holdings.
When I got involved only two short years ago, my plans were modest. Now, I have found that my range of locomotives has grown to the point where, even if we forget my heavyweight passenger cars, 22" curves and #4.5 - #5 turnouts are incompatible with what I want to run on them. Yet, that is what I had...and happily so at the time I began to run my trains. So, my message to you is to find a way to have 24" or larger curves wherever you can get them in and still not run the risk of damaging tumbles to the floor from table's edge where the larger curves necessarily come too close. Number 6 turnouts would by my hearty recommendation for a minimum....everywhere.
You will want more out of the hobby, and out of the experiences that it can offer, and it will happen shortly after you have mastered this layout and its operation. That means that about 8 months from now, give or take 4, you will get a strong hankering for a larger engine or a set of wheels that somehow pushes all of your buttons...several times. So, my advice to you is to plan for growth and for longevity. No need to torture yourself to find a way to build a monster. No, I mean that you should take one extra step to allow for a bit of growth so that you won't be destroying this fine appliance within a year or two. Less wasted cash, for one thing. You happier over time, for another.
Finally, your lower right curve around the turntable is a common set-up. You could easily get 24", maybe even 25 or 26" if you were to widen the bench there by a bit, and tighten the bench on the opposite side of the aisle. Also, even doing that, I think you might get a solid 24" on the left loop, too.
I wish you great success and much happiness with your project. Should be lots of fun.
You have made some great points, I will take them and see about making some changes. I figure this is about the maximum size layout that I will be able to build and complete. The extra leg that comes off the turn table and connects to the main is just and easy way to get to the turntable. After looking at that I could remove it and do something else there.
I was looking at the reach and pretty much I think everything can be reached from one area or another. I know it might be a little bit of a stretch in some areas, hopefully those areas will not need to be reached that often. I will see about adding another six inches to the isle way where possible.
I appreciate the help and insight into this,
jbloch,
I am running HO and most curves are 24" except around the turntable, it is 22". I can rework it and make it 24" but I don't think I can go much bigger then that. I plan on running small steam such as 2-8-2 and maybe 2-10-2.
Conagher,
I was wondering if 5 feet would be too high, I am 5'10" and figured I could use booster step while building and that would give me excercise to keep me thin. Just kidding, I will probably lower it during construction and then when completed (if that ever happens) put it at a higher elevation.
Agamemnon,
I was just trying to add more interest down there. I could take the water feature out and just have another industry there.
storknest wrote: Agamemnon wrote:The first thing I noticed was that in the second picture, there's a stub track that goes over some water. It just looks a bit odd to see a bridge on some deadend track. I don't think that is a stub, looks like a tunnel. There's a track that comes up the left side to that corner that "looks" to end the same and the gray items look like rocks, so I figured it was a mountain with a tunnel through it connecting the two. If it were a stub, you'd have to question the track "stub" on the left with a switch right at the end and how would you access certain industry tracks inside the left loop.
Agamemnon wrote:The first thing I noticed was that in the second picture, there's a stub track that goes over some water. It just looks a bit odd to see a bridge on some deadend track.
I don't think that is a stub, looks like a tunnel. There's a track that comes up the left side to that corner that "looks" to end the same and the gray items look like rocks, so I figured it was a mountain with a tunnel through it connecting the two.
If it were a stub, you'd have to question the track "stub" on the left with a switch right at the end and how would you access certain industry tracks inside the left loop.
I think he's talking about in the lower left of the plan, not the upper left.
The comments so far are right on, but if you don't mind, I'll throw in .
Overall the plan is decnt and workable, but there's a couple things that I noticed.
First, you have a 2 ft. wide isle. Thats not a lot of room to move around. I can only assume the you will be operating this alone and that you are quite skinny and plan to stay that way.
Second, you have no runaround sidings on the left side of the plan. To do any switching will recuire you to use the whole train to switch, block the main, or both. I did a switching demonstration some time ago that mat help. It uses a double track main, but the concept is the same. Take a look at these and note how trains can move around a parked train that is doinf switching manuvers. http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/pcarrell/Track%20Plans/Switching%20Demonstrations/
Third, your yard only has one track if you use one track as the A/D track and the other as the main. Again, I did a demonstration a while ago on the parts of a yard. See if this helps; http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/pcarrell/Track%20Plans/Yard%20Parts/
Also, I'm not sure that I understand the use of the track that comes off of the turntable lead and connects to the main in the top right corner. What's your thoughts on that?
Lastly, there are a few places that are going to be tough to reach. I'm assuming that you have checked to see that you can reach everything OK?
This is not a bad plan, not at all. There are a few things that I would address were it my layout, but it's not. I do like the number of industries you've got for this size layout. Lot's of switching should keep you busy.
Coincidentally, that's the first thing I noticed too.
Also, make sure you can reach all the track over in the area to the left where the reverse loop rejoins itself. Some of those places may be a real stretch. Your reach distance should be made with both arms extended.
And remember: at a 60" height, you'll be doing a lot of up & down work onto a platform or ladder....which gets old quick when having to do a lot of stretching to lay cork, track, etc.
Otherwise, I think you've come up with an excellent layout. It should be lots of fun building and running. Keep us posted with your progress.
Hello everyone,
First of all I need to give credit to Zies96 for part of my plan. I used his plan as a basis since it was kind of close to what I wanted to do.
Now I would like some input on the plan that I am working on. I am going to be using DCC, remote switching, No 6 switches off the mainline and some No. 4's on the branches. The turn table shows the Atlas one, but I will be using the Walthers 90' turntable there instead. I plan on having the layout about 5 feet up and will start by doing a section at a time.
I am planning on dong the 60's era so I can run steam and diesel. There is going to be a small city, some industry, a small to medium size yard, cattle ranch, plus what ever else I decide on.
First image of the track plan
http://www.salvatorephotodesign.com/Trains/Layout/Layout05.jpg
The second image is kinda of houw I see it when completed. Of cours there will be some variations as I start to build it.
http://www.salvatorephotodesign.com/Trains/Layout/JeffsLayout.jpg