Hello all. I'm starting with a small layout. Only have room for a 4x7. I've used Xtrk to put together a layout using flex trax. It's a modified double oval with a small yard for fun. Please let me know what you think. I plan on setting up the benchwork using 2 inch foam as the base, encased with 1x4 frame and 12" centers for the bracing. Comments, suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks much.
You will be able to run two trains simultaneously on this layout but I think you are going to get real tired of this quickly. In terms of a mainline run, the options are clearly limited but switching is also not likely to be much fun since you can not switch the sidings without fouling the main line. Also, a crossover for such a small layout seems like a bit much.
Slowly building a layout since 2007!
The diamond 4 switch crossover is a bit much.
One thinks the train leaves the yard counter clockwise has a choice of routes. Simple enough. But needs a way to cross back over from the outside loop counterclockwise to get back into the yard.
That is why I find the 4 switch double crossover a bit much for such a small road. I dont mind have a straight two switch cross over from outer to inner loop somewhere in that area.
There is no run around without going through the entire layout and just two sidings to switch. me thinks the yard is better off being replaced by a large industry or something.
Finally but not least, double track screams large railroad. Why not consider a single track with a passing siding and necessary sidings only? You might free up some space.
Falls Valley RR wrote: The diamond 4 switch crossover is a bit much.One thinks the train leaves the yard counter clockwise has a choice of routes. Simple enough. But needs a way to cross back over from the outside loop counterclockwise to get back into the yard.That is why I find the 4 switch double crossover a bit much for such a small road. I dont mind have a straight two switch cross over from outer to inner loop somewhere in that area.There is no run around without going through the entire layout and just two sidings to switch. me thinks the yard is better off being replaced by a large industry or something.Finally but not least, double track screams large railroad. Why not consider a single track with a passing siding and necessary sidings only? You might free up some space.
I agree with a lot of this, but I think that double track often works better on a small layout, because there really isn't room for passing sidings, or at least not enough to be useful. On the other hand, a single track branchline might not need much in the way of passing siding, then we'd be talking pretty much one train operation.
A think the double crossover is too much, as well, I think I'd have a single on either side.
Need more givens and druthers.
Edit:
What space do you really have. A rectangle isn't always the best solution.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
That pretty much is the space. In the future, I hope to add on, but at the moment, all I have room for is a rectangle. It does limit my options, but as I'm starting off, this is a learning experience for now.
After reading the previous comments, I am reviewing the crossover and layout....will post schematic shortly. Thanks.
I think it is a good, somewhat original, start to a plan with lots of potential. I like the wye turnout at top.
What I would personally not want is the top industrial trackage at centre-right, the inner tracks that work their way diagonally south east. The rightmost one is fine, but the more central one just seems to be an afterthought. I would move its turnout down its right counterpart and then have a switchback towards the west more centrally. That would add more realism to my way of thinking, and get some tracks in the large open centre of the layout.
Artisan6 wrote:http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2037/2071508067_f0cabfd8dd.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2037/2071508067_f0cabfd8dd.jpg?v=0
A6:
Your railroad looks good. I agree with the others regarding the scissors crossover. They're neat if justified, but you could replace it with a single crossover (of two LH switches) you won't hurt the operational possibities at all, as far as I can see. Otherwise, I like the plan a lot. It's similar to mine, with one stub-end yard and a forked branch, both trailing, but it's double-tracked, and I think this adds a lot.
-You can run it as a two-track main, which is good if you like a lot of train action on a small railroad without working too hard to keep them from colliding.
-You can run it as a two-lap oval. Oddly enough, for this purpose the scissors crossover makes a lot of sense. It lets a CCW train bypass the right inner main so that it can make distance laps while a switcher is using that track as a yard lead. If you don't have enough space in three dimensions, use the fourth.
-You can run it as a simple oval, with the right inner main reserved for yard-lead use and occasional passing. The left inner main would see little use in this scheme, except as a switchback to reach the branch.
The double track does give the impression of big-time railroading. This is not always bad. Of course, six-axle diesels and big steam won't make the sharp curves, but there are ways around that. You could certainly run F units or GP9s, and if your interests turn more toward Real Locomotives, some railroads depended on Consolidations relatively late in the steam era -- or set it back around 1910 or so, when Ten Wheelers were considered large engines.
(What's funny is that my MDC 2-6-0, which looks so small, actually has a very *long* rigid wheelbase of around 15', because of the widely spaced second and third drivers. It's longer than the larger Bowser ten-wheelers, and six feet more than their NYC K-11. It's longer, in fact, than the MDC 2-8-0 of the same size, which has a rigid wheelbase of 14". If this can make it around an 18"R without trouble, and it can, any of those should.)
Maybe you could even have something like the North Shore Line, with heavy traffic but smallish equipment.
One last point - turn your table joists vertical. They'll be far stronger (about 4x) and brace the table better against twisting.
Bus:
I'd like to use the 2" foam within the wood frame. If I align the joists vertical....no more room. I suppose 1x2 would work, no?
At this point, I'm trying to get as much input. I was hoping to keep a double loop, just for the sake of something to do. Hoping to set up DCC, again for the sake of doing it, and would like the option of running 2 engines. A main and a switcher. Of course, this is all long term as I fully understand the costs. Trying to pack a lot into a little. The outside curves are 22 radius, the inside are 18 radius. The industry radii are both 22. I wasn't really looking at realistic to start, more build and have fun.
That's how it's supposed to start, no? Thanks for the input.
Artisan6 wrote: I'd like to use the 2" foam within the wood frame. If I align the joists vertical....no more room. I suppose 1x2 would work, no? At this point, I'm trying to get as much input. I was hoping to keep a double loop, just for the sake of something to do. Hoping to set up DCC, again for the sake of doing it, and would like the option of running 2 engines. A main and a switcher. Of course, this is all long term as I fully understand the costs. Trying to pack a lot into a little. The outside curves are 22 radius, the inside are 18 radius. The industry radii are both 22. I wasn't really looking at realistic to start, more build and have fun. That's how it's supposed to start, no? Thanks for the input.
Yes, vertical 1x2s would be twice as strong as horizontal 1x4s. Beam strength is proportionate to width and to the square of the depth.
I'm glad you're putting in some 22"R. That way, you can compare the operation of your chosen equipment on that as well as the sharper curves, and a 22"R turnback curve is just about as big as you can fit on a 4x8 panel.
Get what input you can, build, and have fun - that's how you do it. Best of luck.
Artisan6 wrote: I was hoping to keep a double loop, just for the sake of something to do.
Any time I see writing like this, I read between the lines. If you are putting in an extra loop to keep from getting bored, you think that your layout plan is boring. If you think that hitting a paddle balls boring, it won't take long or you to think two paddle balls are twice as boring.
Before you build, find a design that fires your rockets. Even if it takes a do-over.
There are some great 4 x 8 designs in the contest in the General Forum. Check them out for some ideas. Vote for your favorite while you are there.
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1276861/ShowPost.aspx
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Interesting take on my ramblings. Actually, I like the idea of running two engines at the same time, and hadn't concerned myself with the "function" of the railroad. Having considered your response, I have redesigned. I have 3 different layouts and I think this one is beginning to "fire my rockets" as you say. Though, there is still something not quite right. Ideas anyone?
The scenario is simple. Mainline from the NE and SW. Yard in SE accepts goods from W, switches in yard, then road engine takes goods from yard to industry. Road engine then leaves cars at industry, picks up finished goods waiting at siding. Proceeds to take finished goods to yard/NE/SW. Meanwhile, switcher picks up now empty cars from the industry and returns them to yard. And on it goes....details not quite figured out...as in what industry, and so forth. But it's a start...and much more interesting than just double ovals....still working. Thoughts?
Thanks.
MUCH Better.
Now build a continious loop. You can run the loop as a point to point while operating. But the Continious is good for breaking in engines. Either that or rollers.
Now your railroad has a reason for being, it only needs a story to tie it all together.
Much better!
Artisan6 wrote: Interesting take on my ramblings. Actually, I like the idea of running two engines at the same time, and hadn't concerned myself with the "function" of the railroad. Having considered your response, I have redesigned. I have 3 different layouts and I think this one is beginning to "fire my rockets" as you say. Though, there is still something not quite right. Ideas anyone? The scenario is simple. Mainline from the NE and SW. Yard in SE accepts goods from W, switches in yard, then road engine takes goods from yard to industry. Road engine then leaves cars at industry, picks up finished goods waiting at siding. Proceeds to take finished goods to yard/NE/SW. Meanwhile, switcher picks up now empty cars from the industry and returns them to yard. And on it goes....details not quite figured out...as in what industry, and so forth. But it's a start...and much more interesting than just double ovals....still working. Thoughts?Thanks.http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2126/2072618077_e329289ae7.jpg?v=0
Thanks.http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2126/2072618077_e329289ae7.jpg?v=0
I agree with FV - connect the loop and make this into an oval, and not just for breaking-in purposes. With a point-to-point run, you have what you have, and can only traverse the track once - and in this case, you can only traverse half the track before switching back, and the tail of the switchback is the upper yard, which has just been stuffed with incoming cars.
If you have an oval, you can leave the yard and run a few laps, imagining the bypassed station out of existence, until you finally stop there. You can also reuse stations, or decide that the yard and single spur at the upper area are actually separate locations. This kind of thing works better in practice than you might think. There's nothing uninteresting about an oval, if the trains have somewhere to go and something to do.
The lower yard also has some problems. The mainline runaround is short, and the larger runaround at lower left has no tail and can't be used. Furthermore, the track that kicks back off the shortest yard track won't be usable when that yard track is occupied. I'd get rid of that whole runaround entirely, lengthen the mainline runaround by double-tracking the left end of the layout, and bring the yard right off that mainline runaround, moving the whole shootin' match left. This will allow you to run around a longer train, and to use the doubled section as a passing track when the yard isn't busy, and as a drill track when the yard is busy. It will also increase the capacity by 3-6 cars, depending how long your cars are, and how far you shift it.
FV/ABus,
Thanks for the feedback. Space Mouse and the rest as well. Bus, I think these last two layouts finish off the yard and runaround. I have this big open space to fill. I have two drawings here. One leaves the space open, one adds a siding. Perhaps a small town or industry for the switcher to work? Not sure. As it stands now, I think the industry and mainline/yard are well serviced and a story can develop around it. Thoughts?
Open space is good.
Less is more.
You have a wonderful plan there.
Space is like money, when it's all gone, then what? Save some for later.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
I like the first of the two new plans because of the industries coming up from the bottom. I think you need variety in your switching direction.
Both versions are better than your first. Every track is maximized for use and you have variety in what you can do so when you build your next layout.
AS you grow, what you will miss most from this plan is staging. Does your room allow for a removable cassette in any of the four corners? Something that can be in place when you run and out of the way when you don't.
Also, it would nice if you could work an engine service into the lower left.
Artisan6 wrote: Thanks for the feedback. Space Mouse and the rest as well. Bus, I think these last two layouts finish off the yard and runaround. I have this big open space to fill. I have two drawings here. One leaves the space open, one adds a siding. Perhaps a small town or industry for the switcher to work? Not sure. As it stands now, I think the industry and mainline/yard are well serviced and a story can develop around it. Thoughts?
I like this revised plan a lot. You've got two "town" areas to switch, a good-sized yard, and a possibility for interchange with a cassette or fiddle yard at upper right. You could have a lot of fun with this plan, and it isn't overly busy, either - while the forked branch helps the right side look less lonely and helps visually justify the railroad's existence, it still leaves a nice open space in the middle for scenery.
You do have several switches at the back (So does my RR). These may need to be remotely controlled. In any case you'll need to have some way to get back there and work on stuff, if the layout is pushed against a wall - perhaps put it on casters, leave a narrow access aisle, etc.
Thanks for all the advice. Space: I'll look into a moveable cassette, though at the moment I don't have the room, but the idea intrigues me. Engine service in lower left....hmmm. Do you know how long it took just to get the double loop? :) Not much room for switches there....thought perhaps an Atlas snap switch to create a spur for a service shed.
Again, thanks to all for your input. I'm sure you'll hear from me again. I love the forums, plenty to read and learn from. Great looking layouts and models abound. Talk to you all soon. I'll be sure to upload progress pics as I go....for my own satisfaction more than anything.
Artisan
Yes, I plan on leaving an aisle for access along the back...though I may make those remote anyway. the rest will most likely be manual. I like the caster's idea, though it's on carpet...so heavy duty ones perhaps. I'll approach that when I get the table built. Thanks again!
Granite,
Yes, it will be HO scale. And yes, I am set on that. It's as much for me as it is for my kids, and the size is better off for them at the moment.
The big open space inside the oval....a product of working in a rectangle, and trying to keep reasonable radii on the curves. The good thing is that open space is not always bad. The bad thing is the shape really limits what you can do about it.
Artisan6 wrote: Thanks for all the advice. Space: I'll look into a moveable cassette, though at the moment I don't have the room, but the idea intrigues me. Engine service in lower left....hmmm. Do you know how long it took just to get the double loop? :) Not much room for switches there....thought perhaps an Atlas snap switch to create a spur for a service shed. Again, thanks to all for your input. I'm sure you'll hear from me again. I love the forums, plenty to read and learn from. Great looking layouts and models abound. Talk to you all soon. I'll be sure to upload progress pics as I go....for my own satisfaction more than anything. Artisan
You showed us a double crossover before, I figured you'd work out using a double slip in the yard throat.
If you come into the room either to the left or right, you have room for a removable cassette.
In fact, if you come in from the top or bottom, you have room.
Space Mouse, you're killing me here.....can't you just say it all at once? lol.
Double slip....forgot that those exist....still new. but yes, that would make putting that yard/service track easier. and, looking at the room I have, a cassette would fit right off of the top right exit track. Perfect for use while running, then store under layout when not. if you could see it, I'd be tipping my hat.
"You showed us a double crossover before, I figured you'd work out using a double slip in the yard throat."
Okay, so I'm a perfectionist....at least as much as I can be on paper. So, here's the double slip, so I can add a service track/programming track for DCC. Useful things those are. (the double slip, that is). Now, you have to stop telling me things....or I'll just continue to tweak the drawing....when I really want to BUILD IT. :D
Honestly though, continue to give advice as you see fit. I'll be sure to read it....and hopefully adapt what I can.
Ciao
Doubleslips are cool, and pretty useful, in the right spot!
One thing I would add is to consider putting a backdrop diagonally across the middle of the layout from bottom left to top right. This will divide it into two "scenes" and make it look a little less like an oval on a rectangular table.
I would also consider having the stage run along the right edge of the layout curled up next to the right hand side of the mainline hidden behind some scenery perhaps. It would be an extension of the first (from top to bottom) yard track.
Operationally, a new train would appear to arrive at the yard from some distant location on the yard's arrival track.
Take my advice with a grain of salt, I have little experience to back it up!
Regards,
Chris
Personally, I would trade that engine house for engine service--fuel, sand, etc. Then if you double that track you have not only engine service, but an industry to supply. (Someone has to deliver the fuel and sand right?) The engine house can either be implied or abbreviated by modeling just the entrance.
If you do that, don't try to park inside. It doesn't work out well.
Edit: You come close to the edge in a couple spots. I know space is limited, so if you decide to do it, put up some kind of lip to prevent the fall into the abyss.
I have nothing to offer as the advice you've been given has been the same or better than I could have given and I really like the most recent plan. Your own ideas have obviously taken advantage of the opportunities various seemingly unrelated changes have offered. Nice job.
What I did want to say was: Thank you! I have two pads of graph paper, compass, paper templates, etc.; and it takes so much time to redraw whenever I consider a change. I now even have a notebook with various yard templates-- all hand drawn and drafted-- which I have considered as my own plan evolves. It is cumbersome and slow going.
Following this thread, I saw how you made changes so quickly to your plan. Yesterday, I investigated and XTrckCad is now on my system and I am learning how to use it as I go and already half way done with my most recent plan.
I am delighted with the results so far. So, Thank you.
Crews