Here is a link to a JPG picture of my HO gauge Pacific Cascade Ry layout design drawn in Anyrail CAD.I would appreciate any feedback on possible operating improvements or track errors I have overlooked.
This is a mountain bridge line between Yakima, WA & the Northern Pacific and Chehalis, WA & the Great Northern / UP/ Milwaukee. I enjoy switching, making & breaking trains and expect the upper level main to be a helper district. This line was actually surveyed in the late 1800 by NP, but found to need too many tunnels, so they made Stampede Pass instead.
Capt. Brigg FranklinUSCG Licensed Marine OfficerCertified crazy train chaserCEO: Pacific Cascade Railway
Cap
Old Navy guy myself. Lived in S.D. for 27 yrs. Now retired in N.C. Looks good to me. How do you like your cad system. I'm thinking of buying one.
Good Job
Nickyb
NickyB
I don't want to sell anything here, but you can judge for yourself. AnyRail gives you lots of alternatives and help. I bought it and like it.
it seems like you have a lot of options for a train to take various paths. So its hard for me to envision how you will operate it and, therefore, make substantive suggestions about track arrangments. Overall, for a layout set in the mountains, you may not have much room for scenery. You may have difficulty reaching the extreme NE corner.
- Douglas
No offense meant, but there is a little too much track, making it look like a bowl of spaghetti. This may be fine if you just want to watch a few trains run, but if you want to go into operation, you may not be able to handle it.
Personally, I like to follow a "less is more" approach, or , as one of my personal layout gurus has put it "the more you know about railroad operation, the less track you need".
I have to agree that it is a little busy and the there are a lot of small things like S curves and other little headaches. Like the green track in Yakima is the tail of a wye and needs a reversing circuit to make sure you do not short.
Not knowing your era or what you are looking for here is something I whipped up. It treats the PCry as a short line interchange with the NP. The NP is only represented by a crossing and a few interchange tracks. The rest is PCry trackage with a small yard and a branch that starts a 3% grade up after the overpass and then starts up again after the town.
Min radius is 24, Min switch is #5 and max grade is 3%.
Let me know what you think.
Chris
Check out my railroad at: Buffalo and Southwestern
Photos at:Flicker account
YouTube:StellarMRR YouTube account
Some impressions, just tossed out without deep detailed analysis of all functions on the track plan: Seemingly too many alternate looping paths through the layout - you don't get much of a feel of a railroad going point to point from Yakima to Chehalis via points B and C. Your text mentions an "upper level main", but it is not quite clear to me what part is the upper level main (blue + orange?), where the grade transitions will be, and how you will access lower level tracks beneath the upper level tracks. Quite a bit of track seems to be at distances from the aisle where it will be hard to reach, possibly under a second layer of track.
I would also suggest not combining a walk-around design (on the left) and a operator pit design (on the right) - you would be constantly ducking into or out of the operating pit. If you want a doughnut footprint/pit design, then make the table on the left a lot narrower and incline it towards the upper left corner (and make layout depth vary according to the needs of the track plan). If you want a walk-around design, the suggestion from Chris Stilson makes sense - make the right end be the end of the layout and split the table visually into two scenes with a center viewblock.
Smile, Stein
Hi Brigg,
a lot of tracks in a smell area. I do prefer a plan like the one drawn by Stillson, though that is my taste not yours.
I made a schematic of your plan:
Could you describe how you envision operation on your layout to be? Which trains, where does the CP interchanges with the NP and so forth.
Also information about the number of trains running at the very same time and the number of operators would be nice to know; the need of dedicated lead tracks is a function of it.
BTW the footprint of a great design by Byron Henderson, the layout is built by Rick Fortin, could be a great choice for your space a well.
I added an extra cross-over (blue), where I thought you could need one. Maybe most important however is to check if this schematic is done right.
Smile
Paul
Thanks to everyone for the many suggestions and especially Paul for the schematic. I want to clarify some of my goals and expected changes.
1. The double loop main is a must as it sets up the gantlet crossover on the bridge which I hope to make a highlight of the layout and gives a longer main with out going over the same track twice. When operating by myself I hope to have my computer run a through freight or passenger to compete for trackage with my way freight.
2. the "S" curves have to go, somehow, to make the north end of the of the loops more reliable. I really did want to have some main running along the face of the mountain cliff as it does in the Yakima river valley, but I don't see how in my limited space.
3. the layout can be seen as point to point with the lower loop, north end, hidden and/or going back into staging. Trains made up in either yard can go over the pass and end into the other yard.
4. The climb over the mountain is necessary to give some vertical height to the layout and allow the mine and power plant to be above the hidden track. I have set the hidden track at "0" height, the yards at 1 inch, and the mountain pass at 4 inches to get the grade down to 3%. I'm OK with the pass being a helper district, in fact I look forward to freights needing a helper.
5 I plan three operator locations, two inside the center U and one outside on the left at the staging yard and the north end of Yakima. With a 30 inch reach to any track I think it should all be within reach. When operating alone I can program my computer to run interference.
6. The red line out of staging is a reversing section and also the NP interchange with Yakima and back into staging. The hidden north end of the lower loop is the interchange at Chehalis with GN & Milwaukee from staging with shared trackage across the bridge and back into staging.
I know it's a lot of track, but a lot of it is hidden or used for interchange, with the two yards and connecting main and upper sidings the primary operating area. It's a lot to hope for and still in the planning stage. Like all good ideas the final product will look different. Again thanks and keep the suggestions coming.
Capt. Brigg
Overall, you are probably trying to do too much in the given space. Prioritizing goals would probably result in a more satisfying product in the end.
From your posts, I seems like making and breaking trains, and replicating at least two scenes, are things that are important to you.
You don't address a desire to switch a logging camp, coal mine, or power plant.; so i think these must be lower priority items for you.
If you need space tto make the changes that others have suggested, like S curve removal and better yard leads, then I would say just eliminate the orange track that sneaks around the outside of the layout. Not to mention, the power plant seems to cause staging to be hidden, and steep grades to be incurred. Eliminating the orange track might help you to better accomplish your higher priorities.
Also: you said you want the bridge to be the highlight of your layout. I have never seen a layout that had its scenic highlight be part of a duckunder or liftout. Usually, duckunders are scenic wasteland's, necessary evils brought about from the need to close a loop, usually.
I would relocate that bridge to be within the main body of the layout somewhere to really be able to show it off, instead of it being something that crosses an aisle to complete a loop, if you get my drift.
Just my observations....
Thanks Dougless for some interesting ideas. I should address some of them.
1. The gantlet bridge will be a lift out at the front of the layout. While the layout is not really for spectators; not much room left in the area, the bridge is in the front of the layout and most visible there. Since the only walk around area is in the middle, the bridge won't get lifted out very often. How often have you seen a gantlet cross over track on a bridge? This could be a first.
2. The yards will be breaking up NP, GN and Milwaukee trains from staging and making trains to send back to staging for those lines. In the meantime some freight needs to go to the Pacific Cascade customers. The push pull coal mine and power plant and logging are important customers. After some track changes the only thing under the mountain is one return track. I'll have to post the new layout as soon as I get it relayed.
Thanks for the continued observations, I'm keeping all of them in mind.
Here is the almost final design. I start putting down plywood tomorrow. I'm still open to improvements, but not starting over. Thanks.
First off good luck, and I cannot wait to see your progress.
A few notes, both town yards still have a S curve at the 3 way switch.
Also I am confused on the need for the double crossover in Yakima, it does not seam to serve a purpose.
I am also a little concerned with the complex hidden track arrangement you have under the power plant, if you keep it as is my only advice is to make sure that it operates flawlessly before you build the tracks above it.
And always remember to have fun!
Thank you Chris. That is the kind of information I have been looking for.
1. I eliminated the S curves at the bottom of the PC main by dumping the 3 way switches in favor of 2 single switches at each location. I hadn't noticed the S curve in the left side of the 3 way. The 3 ways are pretty and complex, but a problem. You can see the revised turnouts in the picture above.
2 If the "double crossover" you are referring to is the "double slip switch" at the north end of the Yakima yards, to the right of the engine house, it is there as an escape for the engine at the north end of the yard and access to the interchange with the PC yard. The other two double crossover switches are:
1. just south of there the passenger station will be on the NP line to allow passing while a passenger train is at the station, and;
2. under the Yakima Power plant, a bad place, but the only way I can get the NP line to hook in to the staging area. It will be accessed from under the layout or by removing a section of foam which will make up the mountain. I will have to run it for 6 months and bullet proof it before I cover it.
The CAD program I am using only allows insertion of commercially available track. The great advantage of hand laying most of my turnouts is that I can space them much closer together with points laying just past a previous frog. The disadvantage, if there is one, is it takes longer to lay the turnout, but is oh so much more pleasurable. I love well laid, complex track work.
This is a rather complex plan. Are you sure you want to deal with the cost and time of building this and then maintaining it? I think layouts that are simple to build but realistic to operate are more likely to give their owner greater satisfaction and less likely to be scrapped in a year or two.
But it's your time, your money, and your layout, so it's totally up to you...
Actually, I think it's a pretty simple tack plan. A yard to yard main, with hidden loop back, and a way out of and into stagging. If it were laid out around the whole room, it would seem overly simple, but laid into a smaller area it looks more complex. I will be building it in stages, and since I like hand laying track and switches, I hope it does take a long time and the finished layout will most likely look different than the drawn plan. If it's well built to start, and thoroughly tested for bugs, the maintenance should be easy and the cost less than buying all the pre-made parts. I'm not looking to simplify the plan, just to find problems with the plan and avoid them. Thanks for your opinion.