Layout plan critque.

[Packers#1]

I'm keeping the roundhouse. I like the yard, there's going to be acces behind it in that empty space. There are 4 industries in Darkwater (right), and there are two industries close to the yard. I'm really happy with it.

dbl. decker, no helix (the lower level only interacts w/ the top level once [interchange]). Top level-Aiken-Darkwater line:

Lower level- Augusta & Southern's Augusta trackage

[Jake1210]

Here's the code 55 version.

 

Packers, what software was that drawn with? I've been using XtrkCAD (which is also free, BTW) but I think I may want to get away from it for a while.

[Anonymous]

P1-You are arrogant aren't you?Those were only suggestions.I don't care if you use them or not.You asked for a critique and that's what you got but you seem to reject most suggestions that are being made.Why not try listening to others for once.

 

[Packers#1]

Sorry, Foulrift, I just explain why I won't use them. Most guys here want to know.

I cleaned up the levels. The bottom now has the industrial sidings all pointed the same way. The top has been completly dbl. tracked now. I cleaned up Darkwater (only 4 spurs, 5 industries [one serves a co-op transfer and farm supply house]).

upper level:

lower level:

Jake, I drew all these plans with Atlas right track software. I got the link to it from this thread (Rotor's post, first page). I download xtrakcad as well, but that thing is way to confusing, the atlas software is easier to use.

http://www.atlasrr.com/righttrack.htm

[Anonymous]

P1-I understand that you are trying to explain things,it's just the way you word your replies.

If you're happy with your track plan then I hope it works out for you.Keep us posted on your progress. 

[Autobus Prime]

P#1:

First, let me say that your plan has improved immensely from the first version. This is starting to look good.

Second, I think you might want to doubletrack the lower left area instead of the top (as viewed). That way, you can switch a whole cut of cars in the yard without interfering with the main line.

Consider getting rid of the turntable. They can hog a lot of space, and if you replace it with an enginehouse, you'll have that room to double-track as noted above. If you need to turn steam or other single-ended equipment (such as diesel units or offset-cupola cabeese), I see a place in the lower level (upper right corner) where you could make an equilateral minimum-size wye. Wyes take space, too, but you can treat them like small interchanges when not turning engines, and on a small layout I think they're more scenery-friendly than a turntable. Besides, three track switches probably beat most TTs in reliability.

Also: as people have said, for a rural branch this is pretty heavy-duty. If you want the heavy traffic and are prepared for all the upkeep of equipment and track, perhaps you'd want to see this road as a connecting or heavy-switching railroad like the EJ&E or Union. If you really want a rural branch, you can scale back the track a lot and run things in a more relaxing manner.

[Packers#1]

Yeah, i guess I just prefer filling in spaces with industry. I think I will re-do the dbl. track. I may take out the turntable, but since I already have one, I prefer to use it. To be honest, I don't want a wye, because they are apparently tough to wire. Hey, this RR is a class 1 line, so I guess it makes sense to have it heavy duty, right?

[Autobus Prime]

P:

Sure. Not every mile of track on a class 1 is heavy duty. The MILW, for instance, had miles of very light-duty branches, and the PRR owned an operating narrow-gauge line near Pittsburgh well into the 20th Century (the Waynesburg & Washington). But if industry floats your boat, by all means go for the heavy switching line.

Wyes actually wire just like (some) turntables. Insulate one leg of the wye. Now run wires from the wye or turntable directly to the power pack.

Insert a DPDT reversing switch into the wires from the rest of the wye, or the approach track of the turntable, to the power pack. Where people continually go wrong (and I see it more and more) is that they put the reversing switch in the wires to the reversing section. (this does work with DCC, but the approach-track method works with DC and DCC equally well.)

The point is that you reverse power "behind the engine's back". See?

Some TTs have built-in power switching. The Atlas one, which I assume you have, does not. At least mine does not. My layout, incidentally, has a TT just because I was at a train show and couldn't resist a $5 bargain. :)

You could save some space by just using the TT to turn trains, and curving a couple or three tracks into an enginehouse. This would be prototypical, too. The Atlas TT is small; it's the roundhouse or garden tracks that really eat plywood.

[Packers#1]

Another fresh plan. a little more dbl. track, and re-did its orienetation. added a four stall engine house, made the yard lead longer, and connected it to the turntable. eliminated roundhouse, added a pocket for the roadswitcher on the wayfrieght, and added some tracks for a car shop.

[Packers#1]

Okay, so I changed the bottom to have a large engine terminal. It is the SEC's leasing co. (SECL) terminal for yard switchers and road switcher. I'll probably end up making most of the roundhouse stalls longer. this line is now owned by the Augusta Switching co. (ASC), which is owned by the SEC.

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

How do you get from one level to the other?  How far apart are they going to be?

I don't think you are going to be able to see, let alone reach, most of the lower level.

My advice is still, less is more.

[Packers#1]

They're connected by a removable one track staging yard. still have to put the switch in the upper staging yard. I was going to mak them 1 ft. apart, but now I think 2 ft. would be good.

[Packers#1]

Drastic changes to the top one.

And the bottom (The turntables are for the SEC's leasing co. [SECL's] ternminal. locos ship out, arrive, get repaired, and get painted here).

[Packers#1]

New bottom plan.

Few industrial sidings, but hey, it looks a heck of a lot better.

[GraniteRailroader]

I think it's time for some layout planning books, Pal.

Your yard is unusable, the radius for most of the curves is way too tight with no easement into them, and your track arrangement for industry makes me go .

I would hate trying to be an engineer and switch your yard.

[Packers#1]

new bottom plan.

[Packers#1]

new bottom plan.

[Packers#1]

OK, here's the new plan.

1. Think Troy Cold storage from the MR WSOR Troy Branch
2. I think this solves the problem Hyce was talking about
3. Yes, I know that a track in the staging yard is crooked. this will be worked out with track lengths in practice.

[Autobus Prime]

P1:

You know, for what you want in a RR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to follow the "Red Rock Northern" plan in the June 2007 MODEL RAILROADER. Pick up a back issue from Kalmbach, or stop by your library, if you don't have one. It's a rural branch with some industries,which you could change or add to, it has a good-sized yard and an engine terminal, and a lower staging level.

At least it would be a good start for any changes you'd like to make. The RRN looks like a decent operating line.

[GraniteRailroader]

OK, here's the new plan.

Funny how you ask for critiques and reviews, but when you use someone elses advice you don't show any credit towards them.

You know what I'm talking about.

[Packers#1]

OK, here's the new plan.

Funny how you ask for critiques and reviews, but when you use someone elses advice you don't show any credit towards them.

You know what I'm talking about.

I actually got that plan from oneforakick on NTRES (national teenaged rail enthusiasts society).

[Autobus Prime]

P1:

You know, when I was your age, I had a 4x8 layout. It wasn't really complicated, but I had a lot of fun with it, running trains, building and rebuilding stuff. Then I decided to rip it down and build something bigger, because it's what Serious Model Railroaders did. I did get a lot built, but it never ran right, and was too much work and not much fun. I got Seriously Bored with the whole thing.

What you want right now is not the Ultimate Dream Layout or anything like it. You want something to have a little fun with for about 3 to 5 years. The layouts you're presenting here, and that one I mentioned, would take me several years to finish completely, and then there's no time for fun.

Why don't you put up a 4 x 8 with a double track oval, a couple of crossovers, and a town with some industrial spurs? Have some fun running trains and switching cars for now, and let people with more time and money make the big plans. A lot of the big layouts you see in MR are built by people with a lot more scratch and a lot more free time than you have, or I have, or most people have.

You can get a 4 x 8 up and running in a month for maybe $200, not counting the trains. Put a sheet of plywood on some 1x4 framing and braced 2x3 legs, stick down cork roadbed, nail down track, enjoy. Once you get something running, I think you'll find it absorbing enough that you don't need to make huge plans any more. If you like, consider the 4 x 8 a "test layout" to see what you like to do. Try different scenery methods, run different equipment and different trains, etc.

I know this is true, because right now my own layout is a fairly simple 4 x 8, and I'm having lots of fun with it, where before I was just bogging down in planning and unfinished projects.

[Packers#1]

P1:

You know, for what you want in a RR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to follow the "Red Rock Northern" plan in the June 2007 MODEL RAILROADER. Pick up a back issue from Kalmbach, or stop by your library, if you don't have one. It's a rural branch with some industries,which you could change or add to, it has a good-sized yard and an engine terminal, and a lower staging level.

At least it would be a good start for any changes you'd like to make. The RRN looks like a decent operating line.

I have a copy of that (secong copy of MR I ever bought), and I'll follow that, but it'll have some changes. And it'll be half the size (n scale is almost half the size of HO[just 7 scale inches off]).

[Autobus Prime]

P1:

Have fun. Make sure you complete a continuous main line and a few spurs first, so you can have fun running construction trains. Gondolas of track nails.

Also make sure to stretch the scaled plan to keep the aisles big enough. If you have room, consider building the plan to its HO size, but with N track and track spacing. It will be nice and roomy, with very broad curves and lots of landscape.

[Packers#1]

This is my 6 ft. by 6 ft. Ohio, Indiana, & Southern. Inspired by the Red Rock Northern. Basically, the way frieght operator is in the middle, and the yard operator is on the outside.

BTW, i absolutly hate 4x8 ft. tables. You can do a great deal with them, yes, but they are absolute space hogs. You hav to acces to at least three sides, and you can't get into their middle w/o an access hatch. I like the donut style better.

[Autobus Prime]

P1:

I don't hate 4x8s. In practice, mine doesn't hog space. Its access space overlaps access space for my workbench, shelves, electrical box, and furnace. There haven't been reach problems. Of course, in HO and larger, any reasonable turnback curve is going to have a reach problem at the back. N scalers would have inserted a plug for their pet scale here, but I sneezed and blew it on to the floor, sorry.

The nice thing about a design whose deficiencies are widely talked about is that many solutions are available. Often the new concept solves one problem but introduces others that must be solved - wall space that is needed for other uses, duckunders or movable benchwork to reach central operating areas, turnback curves that offer their own reach problems and eat lots of real estate.

And there are good things about a 4x8. It's a reasonable table for 18" radius curves, which work reasonably well with small equipment. People say that the size is arbitrary, and might as well be 3x7, if building materials were that size, but that's just the point - the 8 foot module has developed for other reasons, and the 4x8 takes advantage of standard sizes, a Good Thing. Tables are very easy to build quickly, and if flat-topped they are very easy to work out a design on by "analog computing" with snap track.

There are very few "bad solutions". There are lots of solutions that aren't well-matched to problems. The 4x8 works for me, but it might not work for you.

I'm talking too much today.

[Packers#1]

This layout is going in my bedroom, and a 4x8 table is a real space hog. Anyways, any forsee-able problems with my 6x6 plan (other than the town switch lead)?

[Autobus Prime]

P1:

Looks good. Just make sure the 2' x 3' center hole is big enough for you. If it is, pick up some lumber and start making sawdust.

[Packers#1]

A 2x3 hole is no prob. for me, besides, the yard operator is on the outside.

I cut out one spur.

BTW, the sawdust won't start for (hopefully), at most, one year.

[GraniteRailroader]

Packers, I think you're giving up way to easily on this. You know what your givens and druthers are, and what your dream is.

To just up and walk away from something at this point, when so many people have given feedback and helped with plans shows a lack of commitment to whatever you do model.