Well, in about a year or so (hopefully), i'll be building a shelf layout that's 6 1/2 by 9 1/2 ft. There will be removable staging yards. The basics:
scale: N
era: 2007
turnouts: all #6 (as of now)
no minium radius. Biggest locos: Newer ones (huge GE/SD) in the yard, branch line: GP9/30 or SD24/35.
Green blobs=forest
1 square=3 in.
For reference ?s
Sorry about the horrible planning; It's handrawn.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
Hi,
The main issue I have is that the plan as drawn is showing your #6 turnouts drawn in as #2,#3,& #4s. In other words, what you have is a tad optimistic.
You either need to purchase a drafting template or learn one of the software programs. I know that some people think that spending 4-8 hours learning a program is a waste of time, but in the long run, you'll save that time and come up with a better product. Plus, you can test the operations out before you build, and you can print out a 1:1 plan to make sure you get the geometry right on your benchwork.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
I'd love to get some planning software, but there is absolutly zero money for that.
Can you afford a Ruler?? A #6 turnout is one unit diverge per 6 units run, regardless of scale. Doesn't even matter what the units are, as long as they are the same.
There are free programs (you can afford free, right? ) out there to use. Atlas is one that comes to mind.
http://www.railsusa.com/links/Model_Railroad_Software/
http://www.mizelltrains.com/xtrkcad.html
http://www.theliquidateher.com/model-train-layout-software.html
http://www.atlasrr.com/righttrack.htm
Rotor
Jake: How often does the train go by? Elwood: So often you won't even notice ...
Yeah, i'm going by my atlas #6s. I measured each turnout, and they are 6 in., which is reflected in the plan. and I know what I can manipulate them to do.
I'm not talking about the turnout being 6 inches long. I'm talking about the theoretical angle that the turnout will use.
Here are a #5 and a #7 in HO scale. The lines you are drawing on your paper, are the Green lines. The white lines are rails, and the red lines are tie outlines. You should be able to get an idea from this, exactly how your turnouts will lie. Again, the scale makes ZERO difference when it comes to the angle.
Have fun with it..
Having no money for track planning software is no excuse to rely on free-hand drawing. Get paper with grid lines, a compass, a pencil, and a good erasure.
Mark
Thanks to Rotor, I found Atlas Right Track planning software.
The plan:
This is another plan I have. I call it "The Bridge" because it offers continous running. There is a 3 track staging yard and two sidings for auto racks on the one foot wide bridge piece. That spur in the upper part which looks like it's cutting into the area of another: I think I'll have trees and such painted on the side of the building that shows there.
Sawyer --
A suggestion - turn off "show labels" (or whetever it is called in your program). Showing labels on all pieces of track makes your track plans extremely cluttered to look at.
N scale (1:160).
Okay - what curve radius are you using ? Yard curves in upper left hand corner on last drawing looks pretty sharp.
How long are your various engines (in inches) ?
How long are the cars you plan to run (in inches) ?
Stein
There is no way the curves in the upper left of number 2 are goin gto work.
I'd try again, with about half as much track, and see what you can come up with.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Stein-
Curves= 9 3/4, 11 in. radius.
largest car= 50' boxcar on most, auto racks on small portion.
I'll be running mostly GP30s, GP9s, MP15s, and other GP units. Maybe an early SD unit. Might have some modern units runing in a restricted portion of the yard.
Sorry about the labels, I just downloaded this not even 24 hours ago.
I agree on the curves in plan #2, Jeff. I'll play around with it some more.
new plan. this one has 19 in. radius on main, and uses less 9 3/4 in. radi turns. Some spurs are double track, but thsoe are almost impossible to draw w/ this software, so where the three siddings on three spurs cross, those will be double track.
Here's the code 55 version.
Simplify.
Make every track have a purpose.
Why all the seperate ways onto the turntable?
Don't try to make the yard double ended, if there is nowhere to go.
With the length of track you have on the switchback on the lower right, you can't get anything onto the tracks to the far right and top.
Figure out what you want out of your layout, and then try to design it.
For the cost of two turnouts, get John Armstrongs "Track Planning for Realistic Operation".
Every track does have a purpose. Most are for auto industry/heavy industry. Those tracks that run from the top of the yard to theturntable will be covered by a car shop (removable roof, for emergency), and it is a nice way to tye it all together.
I slightly modified that plan for a continous run design. three track staging yard + an auto industry. Still waiting for the plan to load onto photobucket.
For some reason, the url link isn't complete, but you can view the plan here: http://s253.photobucket.com/albums/hh55/Packers_1/SEC/optional%20plans/?action=view¤t=SECcode55continousrun.jpg
The extra track back to the turntable is killing your yard.
I think I'd just double track the whole thing, the (double?) passing track at the bottom, just after a double track section on the right looks wrong to me.
As far as the yard goes, read this:
http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html
Don't try to get evey possible track on the layout. Space can be your friend.
Okay, so here's a plan that I think has a much better yard, and some good space for scenery.
Much better, I think.
OK, how long will your trains be? If you plan to have more than one run at a time, you either need longer passing tracks, or to double track the whole thing. On a small layout, double track is actually easier to do than single, because there isn't enough room for passing tracks. I'd also cut down on the number of industry tracks, so you can get some space between things. Trains want to cover distance, everything is too close together for my taste.
I'd get rid of one of the sidings on the lower part, where you have a double siding. I don't think that fits in.
Really, it's a small branch line conecting 2 towns.
Then I don't know that you need such a large yard, a turntable and a roundhouse.
I need to look at the yard some more, and make sure you have a yard lead that will work.
This version has a long passing siding, and the spurs are more concentrated into the towns. that one spur that sticks out in the middle of nowhere from the passing siding is for a small train museum, that runs a small excursion. this excursion will be like the Gila Tomahawk, featured in the July 2008 Model Railroader. i think it will use either a vo-100 or NW2 (vo-1000, most likely), and 2 coaches, no head end cars.
I'm pretty sure this is the plan I'm going with. i took my previous plan and cut out the engine house I dropped one switch, which cut out about $10, and every bit counts. I'm going to just use a roundhouse.
oh, and I'm going to drop the auto plant and just make that a connecting staging yard. it drops costs, and that little bridge needs to be removable.
P1,
There are a lot of places to run trains and some of them look like you'll take a couple moves to get there. That's okay, but for some people that would get old.
My main concern is that you seem to have designed this layout around track as opposed to thinking about where the buildings are going to go and what kind of buildings they would be and how it would fit with stuff like roads, parking lots, and scenery.
Grab yourself a Walther's catalog and get the foot-print sizes of buildings and see how they fit--especially how they fit in relation to how the track services them.
P1-just a few suggestions
If you get rid of the round house you would have space for either an industry or possibly a team track.
I feel you need to re-think the track design that you have to the right of your yard and the track on the right side of your layout.Looks way too busy.Less is always more.If you try and reduce the amount of track you would still have room to run trains and have space for more industries and switching if you wanted to include that in you plan.
I went thriugh the same thing when I was palnning my layout and it took many tries before I came up with a workable design.Bob