SpaceMouse wrote:It's just more to do. You might want another engine or two at some point and need the space. It can be cut in later. Notice the two little squares--sand tower and diesel fuel.
I did see those. I might move engine operations to the far north yard track if I do keep them in. Then it'll serve a double purpose and won't just be "there".
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote:You do and your engine can't release and get around the train.
Yeah, I realized that once I had a chance to do some operations on Xtrk. The engine house will most likely get cut, though. I'm not sure I'd need it with a 2 engine operation, and it'll save me from buying 2 more switches.
I decided I couldn't live with the yard split like that so I fixed it. I also threw in a couple more sidings to go with the extra yard capacity.
Okay, I tried to stick to your concept here, but I must say the snap switches are a limitation. They absorb space in the layout.
Both runarounds are extended to provide for longer trains. I added two tracks to the yard, assuming the lower tracks are A/D or de facto staging. The upper yard is for building trains. I added engine service. The crossovers are for engines escaping--I guess redundant with the runaround.
I deleted the redundant loop. The saved space can be used of a scenic element or another industry coming from the top of the lower runaround.
SpaceMouse wrote:Well since you ask...The upper runaround is still not long enough for you to get around your train without cutting it, which will get old after a while. I explained how you could fix it, but since you didn't... Likewise, it makes no sense to have two runarounds right next to each other that only come together for a car length and split apart. The dual curve probably should go since coupling and uncoupling will be difficult. All the places where the track shows red are problems. You need to work those out. Finally you could have twice the yard you have now if you used the technique I explained to you. Thing is once you learn it you could cut your design time down by a factor of 10. No kidding.
Well since you ask...
The upper runaround is still not long enough for you to get around your train without cutting it, which will get old after a while. I explained how you could fix it, but since you didn't... Likewise, it makes no sense to have two runarounds right next to each other that only come together for a car length and split apart. The dual curve probably should go since coupling and uncoupling will be difficult. All the places where the track shows red are problems. You need to work those out.
Finally you could have twice the yard you have now if you used the technique I explained to you. Thing is once you learn it you could cut your design time down by a factor of 10. No kidding.
Well, I thought I understood your advice. Any chance you might be able to draw a picture or two?
As far as an 'industry' that might use a box car or two a day....team track. Just a road, and a ramp if there's room.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Thanks for yet another Xtrk tip. Here's the fixed version:
Should I take the relative silence on this to mean that this plan is mostly okay? I was also wondering if anybody had ideas for small industries served by one or two cars a day (mainly boxcars, but open gondolas would work, too) that I might put along the industry sidings?
And in case anyone was wondering, since I never got an answer on this, adding short straight sections between tight turn radius tracks doesn't help run longer cars.
You can export the XTrkCad drawing to a .bmp (under the file menu), convert to jpg using your favorite graphics manipulation program (irfanview, in my case), and then post the jpg. No need to stitch screenshots.
Here's the latest (sorry for the long delay, I've been busy). I had to zoom out, since the last one on Xtrk was done by combining about 7 screenshots and I don't feel like doing that again. I added in lines for how I'm going to break up the benchwork. It has to be modular, since I can't devote the room permanantly to the layout.
Without going into any operational aspects of the layout, there re a couple minor things that I might help you solve and show you a little about the program.
1) Look at the top yard. You notice how the train takes a little S turn while the one below is smooth. Okay delete everything above the turnout (the top two tracks the two short curved pieces)
Now using the extend track tool. Click on the diverging leg of the turnout and drag out some track. Now click on a right turnout from your library place it on the track and drag it toward the turnout until it won't go any more. Select the remaining straight track and delete it. Use the extend track tool, click on the diverging leg, and drag track with the lower yard. Use your parallel track tool to make a straight piece of track above the track you just made. Now use the join track tool to connect the new leg to the open leg of the turnout.
(actually you could have put a second turnout before you deleted the excess and created a third yard track. You have room.)
2) The upper runaround is still a little small and awkwardly shaped. You have one section with a turn tighter than your minimum radius (in red). Select and delete all the tracks between the yard throats and the siding in the upper right corner.
Use your extend track tool to extend the diverging leg. Like before select a right turnout and slide it until it cant go any further. Delete the excess straight track. Use the join tool to connect the diverging track of the new turnout to the lower yard throat. Use the join tool again to connect the other leg of the turnout to the upper yard throat.
Your runaround is longer and smoother.
Thanks for the help with turnouts, Jeff. I took a test spin doing a little bit of shuffling cars around and switching, and I was very glad of two things right away: the longer north runaround (which actually does serve a purpose when delivering to the bakery, etc.) and the extra two tracks on the north yard. The only thing that was a problem running was that the tracks under the mine are too short, but that's easily fixed. I also had problems with tank cars, but I think that's because the ones I was using are 25' at least longer than the ones I'll be using.
Anyway, here's my latest plan, done on XtrkCAD:
one square = 1' foot. I didn't bother drawing in benchwork this time.
Shift-left click to throw turnouts in XTrkCad.
edited to correct misinformation about snap switches...
I like xtrkcad. If I remember correctly, when simulating, you flip the turnouts with the mouse, maybe clicking on the rails past the frog.
Just to clarify my previous suggestion that you use a left switch to eliminate the s-curve in the north runaround, I meant a snap-switch due to it's curved diverging leg. If it's any consolation, I have a loop at one end of my layout that I'm about to rebuild with code 83 snap switches. The #4 customlines work great for me. I'm assuming (hoping) the snap switches will too. One significant difference is the frogs - the customlines have conductive frogs that can be wired (I haven't need to wire any of them). The snap switches have plastic frogs.
When I do rebuild my loop, I will use sectional track to do it. My experience with flex track is ok, but it's difficult to lay perfect curves, especially when joining with turnouts. The result of an imperfect 18 inch radius curve is that portions of it are more than 18 inch and portions of it are LESS. The less parts tend to be derailing points. I will cut and solder together sectional track so I get exaclty 18 inch this time. It might work well to use flex on the less severe curves, or perhaps solder flex to a piece of sectional track to establish the initial curve.
By the way, I notice you're taking a bit of a beating about your layout. I recommend you take it all with a grain of salt. The suggestions are good, and can help you make a better layout, it in the end it will be YOUR layout. You can certainly lay some track, wire it, and TRY IT OUT FOR YOURSELF. Nobody will ever tell you that you can't dissassemble it and try something different :-) Remember: it's a hobby! Keep it fun!
Jim
Thanks to whoever recommended XtrkCAD (I can't find who said it); I'm putting my track plan into the program now and I'd have run some trains if I could only figure out how to work the switches in the program . I do think that a longer North runaround will be needed, and I am going to expand the north yard- I just have to figure out the specifics of what I can fit in. I should have another plan up later this evening (not at my home computer all day, so I can't really work on it).
Thanks to everybody who's replied to this, even if I don't use your advice. It's really great to have this kind of support for making your own track plan for the first time. One thing I thought of with the coal mine would be to have 2 tracks load coal, and the last track load rock at a faster rate- several runs would be required per session for gravel. I could put in part of a cement factory above the yard.
Wikious wrote: Now, I know that if an intermodal train is in WI, it's probably lost, and that coal mine should be, if anything, a gravel quarry. I really want to build something with interesting operations, however.
Now, I know that if an intermodal train is in WI, it's probably lost, and that coal mine should be, if anything, a gravel quarry. I really want to build something with interesting operations, however.
That's why I suggested a paper mill. A little more plausible than a coal mine and a lot more variety. Chemicals and pulpwood/chips in, paper in a variety of boxcars, waste chemicals out. It could concieveably handle tank cars, covered hoppers, open top hoppers, flats and boxcars.
The first industry that came to mind that I could model both ends was hauling coal to a powerplant.
But you have both ends of the paper mill on your layout, you could have 3 moves (there is a 4th but we'll get to that later). If you made your power plant into a bag plant, you could move paper from the paper mill to the bag plant, then bags to the flour mill, then flour to the interchange. Plus you could make the industry in the center either a chemical plant that makes chemicals to supply the paper mill or uses the spent chemicals from the paper mill to make something else. So now you have several interplant moves on the same layout.
Regarding that yard, it will serve, at most, a dozen containers per train (One 5-car unit train and one separate car) with one of those container cranes on the huge forklift.
The north yard will serve as an interchange yard, with who it really doesn't matter.
Between the current bakery tracks and the intermodal yard I'm going to build a viewblock- large hills with forest and possibly even a vertical board.
As to the turnouts, well, you really have to use what you have, and snap switches are sadly what I have several of, as well as lots of sectional track.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman wrote:The N runaround is virtually useless. I would suggest losing the runaround, use the real estate to lengthen the tracks and put in a sector plate at the end of the tracks. [...] I suggest he draw the plan to about 1/2 or 1.4 scale and cut out scale sized cars and try to operate it.
The N runaround is virtually useless. I would suggest losing the runaround, use the real estate to lengthen the tracks and put in a sector plate at the end of the tracks. [...] I suggest he draw the plan to about 1/2 or 1.4 scale and cut out scale sized cars and try to operate it.
I agree completely. That north runaround can hold maybe one car. So if you pull a cut from the IM yard, do you want to pull one car onto the runaround, shove it into the yard, go back and get one more car, shove it in, etc? Better to use the longer runaround and push the cars up to the yard. Maybe you want a single car runaround to add to operational complexity, but I don't think it will prove very satisfying in the long term.
If you don't try operating with scale-sized cutouts, measure the lengths of your tracks and see what each track can hold. I had a similar problem trying to shoehorm in a tailtrack for a runaround. It couldn't hold more than a switcher and one 50-ft boxcar. Since I wanted to run GPs, I had to redesign.
Moving on to the track, I highly encourage Flextrack. If you are able to get to and from all of your switches in a eyeball SMOOTH curve, your trains will appreciate it. Sectional Track introduces a "JERK" or a LURCH at times enough to make derailments. Also less electrical connections are necessary and the "Ride" is better with a joint every 3 feet or so.
Now I may have talked myself out of Kato Track, but I have my own reasons for using it and have the space to do it.
I recognize your statement about foundation wall to foundation wall. It is universal in my opinion.
Many industries are either the source, middle or the end of all things. They require either thier own raw material or have it shipped to them or... they require raw material to be milled, processed, forged, machined, poured, mixed, m\smelted etc etc into stuff. And they require some of the middle processed MATERIAL like steel coil to sprout finished items like washing machines. Dont forget the wires, paint, rust enamel, buttons, labels, nstructions, packing, crating etc... each of which requires thier own industries.
Trucks and Rail sometimes works together or compete with each other.
Oh, Wisconsion makes Cheese and Dairy Products... How about a Walthers Sterling Dairy Complex?
Wikious wrote: As to the turnouts, well, you really have to use what you have, and snap switches are sadly what I have several of, as well as lots of sectional track. We can't get everything we want, though, so I have to use as much of the track on hand as I can. It can be upgraded later when money permits. (If it were up to me, I'd also be able to tear down all the basement walls and build from foundation wall to foundation wall )
As to the turnouts, well, you really have to use what you have, and snap switches are sadly what I have several of, as well as lots of sectional track. We can't get everything we want, though, so I have to use as much of the track on hand as I can. It can be upgraded later when money permits. (If it were up to me, I'd also be able to tear down all the basement walls and build from foundation wall to foundation wall )
Well, don't be too sad. I just expanded my layout with all Atlas snap switches...why? Well, the custom line switches may be more prototypical and easier to create parallel track etc. but they don't come with motors attached and, unless you want to go manual, that amounts to 50% more in cost at my LHS....$29 vs $19. I put in 17 additional switches so that saving can add up.
Snap switches work fine.
As long as you can be sure you are creating track that is smooth and clean, use your "leftovers" and save the money for decoders etc. I've got 50+ locos that are going to need some of the money I saved on switches. (but if your sectional is used and possibly out of gauge or something, I would go with flex track. There are certain alignments that you just can't make happen with sectional track....even by chopping it up again and again.)
Well, first off, this is going to be a largely freelanced railroad. The only things really SE Wisconsin about it are the general terrain and the railroads operating on it. What can I say, I've grown up around them and I rather like them. Now, I know that if an intermodal train is in WI, it's probably lost, and that coal mine should be, if anything, a gravel quarry. I really want to build something with interesting operations, however. The first industry that came to mind that I could model both ends was hauling coal to a powerplant. It will provide some switching challenges that should help make things more interesting. Intermodal freight has always fascinated me, so I decided to put a very small yard in. Regarding that yard, it will serve, at most, a dozen containers per train (One 5-car unit train and one separate car) with one of those container cranes on the huge forklift.
The north yard will serve as an interchange yard, with who it really doesn't matter. Grain cars, tank cars, and boxcars for the bakery will originate here, as well as some boxcars for the team track and other industries. I'll set up a timetable for delivering these at certain times- more interesting than "Okay, I set them all out, session's over".
The S curves are the least of his problems. i don't believe he has nailed down how its going to operate yet. Where are the trains running from? where are they going to? Is it just an industrial area? Is the yard near the town staging, is it a switching yard?
The N runaround is virtually useless. I would suggest losing the runaround, use the real estate to lengthen the tracks and put in a sector plate at the end of the tracks.
Any staging will be taken up with a coal train and a cut of intermodal cars, leaving one track for all the other industries on the layout. One reason why intermodal is really nasty on a small switching layout.
Why would you have an intermodal ramp in Wisconsin out in the middle of nowhere? Why wouldn't it be in the town?
Before he goes any further I suggest he draw the plan to about 1/2 or 1.4 scale and cut out scale sized cars and try to operate it.
On the east end of the north runaround, there is a nasty S-curve. Instead, use a left switch instead of a right switch and move it one track section east. The diverging route of the left (snap) switch is really on them main, and the straight route is part of the runaround. Sory I don't have a picture. This eliminates the s-curve and makes the runaround longer.
I borrowed the image and painted other suggestions of my own.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/715/revision2ze8.jpg
Black X: Remove switch.
Blue Track: Put a new switch into that straight part of curve. Run track around the outside of the curve.
Green Arrow: Move both Industry and Bakery and thier two tracks over far enough to reconnect to the blue track line.
Goal, eliminate S curve and create short drill off mainline.
On review I noticed S curve still present.
On this one, the Red represents a new switch and inside line curved to meet mainline later. The two tracks, Industry etc are moved over to meet the old mainline section.
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/661/revision3xa0.jpg
Wikious wrote:Wow, changing the library on RTS really does make a difference. I'll try to re-work my plan using the new library.
Also it looks like you are using "snap switches". If you look at the track selections you will find another one that has a more gentle departure angle (custom line #4).
Look at all the space you now have in the north yard. I think I would add at least one more track up there.