So I've done a mock up of a new layout, for a new room, with a new piece of software (XTrackCad). I am having a LOT of trouble with flex track in this product, along with how it handles the height of objects within a layer, so bear with me.
Link to larger image
This is what I have so far, but you can get an idea of the room size and constrains I'm working with. I felt like reversing my original intentions and putting the backboard on the inside of the layout and making it a walkaround made more sense.
the angled lines on the sides are where the backboard is going to hide a tunnel and the train disappears. The upper side of the layout is going to be an intermodal/truck shipping scene with (for whatever reason, I dunno why I picked this) some propane stuff. (It's relatively small and uses tanker cars, which I've always liked). The south side is a city scene and yard. Left side is a shopping mall, with a passenger station.
Both yards have a sorting track and an entrance/exit section as recommended by the Sperandeo Freight Yards book.
Your thoughts?
(Edit: added crossovers for inner/outer main)
(Edit: Eliminated S-curves and completely changed up both yards.
Julian
Modeling Pre-WP merger UP (1974-81)
If you are going to operate from the outside, have you considered a centreline backdrop, with 3 foor side tables, with more room for scenery between track and backdrop?
Then building, hills,etc can be bigger.
Dave
Where will you be standing? I can tell you from prior discussions that the 2' at the bottom and the 2'4" aisle on the right isn't going to attract a lot of positive comments. You won't be able to invite Ashley Graham over for an op session.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Yeah, the 2' aisles are tight, very tight. Can your mainline radius be reduced to gain some aisle space?
Consider a set of crossovers from the inner main to the outer in front of the passenger station at either end of the platform. That will give you more operating flexibility, as weoll as a way around a passenger train sitting at the platform, since you don't really have staging for it to disappear into.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I'm not really having any issue with the 2' aisles. The benchwork is already built and in place (minus the two 4' sections in the center.) I'm not a big guy, and neither are any of the people that I know, at least currently. 2'4" is also very close to the room door width, and there is a short hallway that goes through which is maybe 4" wider.
I want to avoid the centerline backdrop so that I can make the goofiest-looking portions of the oval curves disappear on the left and right.
I'll add the crossovers for the main, I had just forgotten about that. (now added to the pic above)
The crossovers are definitely a plus. If they could be spaced a little further apart to allow a longer train to sit, would be better, but you've got a lot going on right in there, so maybe one of those compromises you have to make.
If benchwork is up and you're comfortable, things tend to be settled for now. But we don't tend to get smaller. 25 years ago, I would've said the same thing -- and now I realize I wished I had another six inches or so width EVERYWHERE
I did notice that things seems to be set back 4" to 6" from the edge on both long sides. If you could even gain 3" on both long sides, you'll thank yourself in a decade or so...then again, people move and if this is meant to be a 10-year layout and not a lifetime one, then you're good.
I've made some revisions, eliminating S-curves, and I added an intermodal destination yard and coach area. Yeah, it's crowded, but I ran the simulation that XtrackCad provides There's also plenty of room in the upper yard to run the switcher around for longer cars. Turning the A and hostling the B unit around to turn the passenger train is pretty fun. It's always good when you can find an excuse to hostle a B unit under its own power ;)
I left the turntable off the main because it's pretty much the only place I could put it.
This layout is meant to be moved. I know I'll have to pull some track up to do so. It's no big deal. it's also part of the reason I built it with all sectional track. It's freestanding.
fieryturbo I want to avoid the centerline backdrop so that I can make the goofiest-looking portions of the oval curves disappear on the left and right.
To make it even less goofy looking, I would put the tracks close together in the curves rather than separated like you have them now. Two tunnel portals over a double tracked main will look less goofy than 4 tunnel portals relatively close together. Tunnels are expensive. A real railroad would avoid drilling two separate tunnels, so the double track main line appearence will look more realistic, IMO.
You could also do the center backdrop thing and have the tunnels simply be smaller. The backdrop will add distance and depth to the tunnel scene on each side.
Also, you might want to consider something other than a propane industry. Propane cars tend to be longer. Corn syrup, clay slurry, or fertilizr tend to use shorter tank cars. And Cement cars are short if you wanted to introduce hoppers. With your tight radius curves, I would stay away from industries that require longish rolling stock.
Edit: I see you have container and passenger areas, so I can understand your desire to conceal the curves as much as possible.
- Douglas
Doughless Also, you might want to consider something other than a propane industry. Propane cars tend to be longer. Corn syrup, clay slurry, or fertilizr tend to use shorter tank cars. And Cement cars are short if you wanted to introduce hoppers. With your tight radius curves, I would stay away from industries that require longish rolling stock.
My solution will be to introduce some city structure that looks like a tunnel, maybe even an elevated train crossing, or just some kind of concrete structure, that accomodates the passenger cars. The passenger cars are also the reason I didn't put the tracks so close together on the curves - overhang. I'm sure I can kitbash some kind of prototypically ugly cement thing together.
You work with what you've got to work with, I guess.
Bumping this because I'm really surprised nobody has found any significant fault with it. S curves? Glaring mistakes? Anyone?
You still have potentially troublesome S-curves where the end curve turnouts connect with the crossovers along the bottom of the drawing, depending on the frog number of the turnouts. They look sharp -- like a SnapSwitch -- but it’s hard to tell. If they are all #6s or #8s, much less of an issue.
The industry trackage seems more complex than needed to function with the extra crossings and the double-crossover.
There are likely more-efficient ways to connect the container and piggyback tracks to eliminate switchback moves.
The widely-displaced end curves use up a lot of layout space. They also indirectly make your yard shorter -- and it could be arranged more efficiently overall.
I guess the width is due to trying to make use of existing benchwork, but overall it seems you're not getting as much "bang for the buck" as you could from the width and the added length.
But if you're happy with it, go for it. Good luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I haven't followed any previous threads that you may have started where you may have dismissed the following suggestion, so I'll mention the obvious anyway.
You're giving up a lot of potential layout to provide walk-up access to the back window. Expanding the north and east sections so they abutt the walls would provide mush more space, much broader curves for the longish cars you want to run, and would solve a lot of the issues brought up so far. You would end up with a duckunder/liftout and a center pit for operations, if that doesn't bother you.
cuyama You still have potentially troublesome S-curves where the end curve turnouts connect with the crossovers along the bottom of the drawing, depending on the frog number of the turnouts. They look sharp -- like a SnapSwitch -- but it’s hard to tell. If they are all #6s or #8s, much less of an issue. The industry trackage seems more complex than needed to function with the extra crossings and the double-crossover. There are likely more-efficient ways to connect the container and piggyback tracks to eliminate switchback moves. The widely-displaced end curves use up a lot of layout space. They also indirectly make your yard shorter -- and it could be arranged more efficiently overall. I guess the width is due to trying to make use of existing benchwork, but overall it seems you're not getting as much "bang for the buck" as you could from the width and the added length. But if you're happy with it, go for it. Good luck with your layout.
fieryturboThe only snap switches on the layout are on the upper section in the lower yard, but they are 22 degree and have a long stretch in between.
You probably mean 22" radius Snap-Switches. Note that the frog is pretty sharp (~#3), so it's relatively sharper than the 22" radius curves. Switching requires shoving cars through that frog, so there might be issues with some combinations of locos and rolling stock.
If it were me, I'd simplify that area and use Atlas #4s (actually #4½) instead. I don't think that you are actually gaining anything with that complex track arrangement.
Just FYI: Most would not term that section of layout a "yard", rather "industrial trackage" or "industry spurs". Doesn't matter for layout building, of course.
The other concerns I mentioned earlier remain.
Good luck with your layout.
I looked again at your plan, and maybe I didn't explain it clearly the first time. The two turnouts marked with question marks still don't look like #6s to me -- maybe just my eyes.
If they are Snap-Switches, the path shown through them and the diverging leg of the crossover could be a bit unreliable. Note also that the effective minimum radius through the outer oval is reduced to less than you may be planning if those are sharper than #6s.
But I may just not be seeing it correctly.
Yeah, those are also 22" snap switches. I forgot about them. Luckily, they're attached to track I really don't think is that essential, so they can be dropped. I just moved the turntable down one track.
What is the radius of the curve in the "coach yard", and are you using 6 axle or 4 axle coaches?
BMMECNYC What is the radius of the curve in the "coach yard", and are you using 6 axle or 4 axle coaches?
The curve in the coach yard is 24". All of my passenger equipment is 6 axle. All turnouts are #6.
A word of caution: Walthers RTR and Branchline (possibly the Atlas RTR versions of Branchline as well, but I have not confirmed this) 6 axle coaches do not like my nominal 24" radius (I suspect that some of my flex track laying was not perfect however the radius guage fits in between the rails, so its pretty close).
Sorry, I was mistaken. The passenger coaches are 4 wheel.
I've built the inner-most track and yard, and tacked it down with cloth staples. It works okay, nothing moves or interferes with the trucks. The 22" turnouts didn't give me a single issue,and the DDA40X glides right through them. However, at acceptable yard speeds, the crossover frogs cause the wheels to come up off the track. Are these Atlas crossings known for this? It's the plastic parts that seem to be giving the issue.
I suppose it's possible that I have wheels out of gauge, but I doubt it.
My BLI E9 doesn't exhibit this, but I assume it's because there is a bit more shift room when C versus D trucks pivot from side to side. I think it also has more weight per square inch as opposed to the Bachmann DDA40X. I haven't tried any B trucks.
Thoughts?
I've never seen a Bachmann DDA40X up close, so I don;t no what compromises Bachmann made on them to allow them to actually work on 18" radius track, but it has to be something with very loose tolerances in the axles, possibly some gauging compromises, to get enough play in the wheels to actually conform to such a sharp curve. If built to scale you couldn't even get one truck all by itself in even 22" radius. So asking it to swing back and forth rapidly in a crossover is just too much to ask of it. Plus as Byron said, the effective frog angle in those 22" radius Snap Switches is VERY small. Atlas #4's are actually a much greater equivalent radius. The closure rails have about a 22" effective radius, but the overall turnout is closer to 36" radius. Apart from S curve situations such as a crossover, they should do a better job than the 22" Snap Switches - and even then, it's actually an improvement on the s curve situation over the Snap Switches because there's at least a tiny bit of straight between the alternate curves.
Actually, it looks like your space is large enough to incorporate a more around the walls type of thing (Byron's site has some very nice examples that would either fit the space you diagrammed, or be modified fairly easily to shorten one dimention while expanding the other). Even without crossing the door (thuis no duckunder or liftout) you could fit quite a bit of track in that space and still get continuous running, all while using larger radius curves and larger turnouts.
And in relation to your post in the Electronics and DCC section, just because you drew it in XTrack as sectional track, you can still use flex, expecially for those curves. The tolerences on sectional track curve sections, even good brands, is such that by the time you string 8 or 12 sections together for a curve, there's either a large gap somewhere, or the curve is slightly kinked. With flex you reduce the number of joints, which is better for both physical operating relibility and electrical reliability. My personal preference is to solder 2 pieces together at the bench and then curve the assembly, this is long enough for a 90 degree curve of even 30" radius. 3 sections together would make a full 180 degree curve up to about 30" radius, definitely plenty for a 24" radius curve where it would allow the ends to be straight past the curve to help anchor things.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker I've never seen a Bachmann DDA40X up close, so I don;t no what compromises Bachmann made on them to allow them to actually work on 18" radius track, but it has to be something with very loose tolerances in the axles, possibly some gauging compromises, to get enough play in the wheels to actually conform to such a sharp curve. If built to scale you couldn't even get one truck all by itself in even 22" radius. So asking it to swing back and forth rapidly in a crossover is just too much to ask of it. Plus as Byron said, the effective frog angle in those 22" radius Snap Switches is VERY small. Atlas #4's are actually a much greater equivalent radius. The closure rails have about a 22" effective radius, but the overall turnout is closer to 36" radius. Apart from S curve situations such as a crossover, they should do a better job than the 22" Snap Switches - and even then, it's actually an improvement on the s curve situation over the Snap Switches because there's at least a tiny bit of straight between the alternate curves. Actually, it looks like your space is large enough to incorporate a more around the walls type of thing (Byron's site has some very nice examples that would either fit the space you diagrammed, or be modified fairly easily to shorten one dimention while expanding the other). Even without crossing the door (thuis no duckunder or liftout) you could fit quite a bit of track in that space and still get continuous running, all while using larger radius curves and larger turnouts. And in relation to your post in the Electronics and DCC section, just because you drew it in XTrack as sectional track, you can still use flex, expecially for those curves. The tolerences on sectional track curve sections, even good brands, is such that by the time you string 8 or 12 sections together for a curve, there's either a large gap somewhere, or the curve is slightly kinked. With flex you reduce the number of joints, which is better for both physical operating relibility and electrical reliability. My personal preference is to solder 2 pieces together at the bench and then curve the assembly, this is long enough for a 90 degree curve of even 30" radius. 3 sections together would make a full 180 degree curve up to about 30" radius, definitely plenty for a 24" radius curve where it would allow the ends to be straight past the curve to help anchor things. --Randy
The DDA40X will not run on 18" curves. It actually gets stuck (I tried this when I got it at Christmas, as an 18" R oval is all I had). In contrast, it moves just fine through the 22" snap switches. Bachmann gives a minimum of 22" radius.
Whatever is going on with the X section in the crossover, it's unrelated to the D wheelsets, as there is almost 9" of straight track before the truck hits the crossover.
As much as I'd like a 30" radius, it's just not going to happen. Maybe if I move I'll attempt something like this, but not with that bedroom. If I had an around-the-room layout, you're talking about blocking off the closet (where my workbench is) the window (it's tall, and goes down to nearly the floor, maybe 1-2 feet up) and the door. I'd also have to climb under into a pit. While I had the 8x6 pit constructed, I realized I absolutely hated that setup, and I like this one a lot more in execution.
I also don't have any space or the power tools with which to do actual construction. Power tools are very limited, and getting things home is difficult in my car.
I suppose the 22" snap switch crossover was something of a shortcut and an indulgence on my part as I wanted to be able to service 3 industries on one long track with a switcher. Being able to stuff a DDA40X is just an amusing surprise if anything. The other two yards are all #6, and so don't have this issue.
The window, I can;t help with, but what i was thinking was something along 3 of the walls, NOT blocking the closet door or room door. With the room width you could even have a penninsula in the middle. No pit to duck into, it would all be open, just walk into the room and walk up to the layout.
As for materials - that's why I built my layout in 4 foot pieces. 4 foot pieces of wood fit in any car. You might be able to do 6 foot if your back seat folds down. Only thing that didn;t come in smaller pieces was the extruded foam, so I just cut the 8 foot sections in half in the parking lot and loaded them in the car. For the longest time I didn;t even use power tools (I built my previous layout in an apartment bedroom). 1x lumber cuts easily with a hand miter box. The foam cuts with a sharp putty knife.
Don't know what I am going to do with it, but I have the whole layout stacked up in my basement right now, it wasn't too difficult to move, I just had to cut through the track at the section joints (I just laid it continuously) and unbolt them from each other. For the majority of the construction, the only power tool was a cordless drill/driver.
I did initially look at that type of a design along 3 of the walls. The problem became that it was a giant U shape, and then to turn the train I needed to make a peninsula turnback loop. The peninsula ended up being a problem as it interfered with access to the closet, and also ended up leaving me with a 1' section that I had to squeeze through to get to the corner. The final dogbone design for continuous running just ended up being too much work as the layout was nearly all dogbone, and squeezing 24" into a 240 degree or so circle as a safe part of the layout was nearly impossible.
I was also stuck reusing old benchwork that I had already built for the front room, which created its own issues. I could have afforded to throw it away, as it didn't really cost that much, but the alternatives were just not that appealing.
I'm aware this isn't the optimal configuration for this room, but at least it can be moved in its 2x4' sections, doesn't bock anything, and ingress/egress is acceptable at worst. It'll be a different deal when I buy a house, and I'll want to start over.
Most of what I've already built was made with a big tarp down, a hand saw, a borrowed saw horse and a miter box. I initially used a circular saw but it was just too messy and noisy.