Found something from a year( or 2) back or so ...almost in the same measerments/proportions...
Also "designed" for N scale...
just reflect the left part..so that will "go" to the right...( like a mirror?? )
plus an "artimpression" of the left part of the plan...
Hi Tony
It is difficult to understand you.
tony22 Will your trains be Heissler or Shay geared engines lugging cars with logs out of the forest to a paper mill or planing mill or some such thing? Yes. I thought I was pretty clear about that in my first post. Late steam era transition. Independent logging branch
Will your trains be Heissler or Shay geared engines lugging cars with logs out of the forest to a paper mill or planing mill or some such thing?
Yes. I thought I was pretty clear about that in my first post. Late steam era transition. Independent logging branch
So you want to have an independent logging branch with a shay doing the job.
tony22"The layout is meant to show a branch operation that takes either coal or lumber from a private short line and have its material delivered to industries which then produce various products, which are picked up by the PRR. The branch operation uses a leased two truck Shay.
So you do not want a logging branch, but a branch that is picking up cars from a logging branch and delivers cars to various industries. The industries also are served by the PRR, so this branch can be PRR owned but your LOG INC RR has trackage rights or visa versa. If a Shay is appropriate on this branch is another question. For this operation you do not need a yard or a turntable or even a branch; the only thing you need is an interchange track (with the private short line) and some bigger industries, e.g. a sawmill or a paper mill.
If you don't have a clear vision, how can I help you? This was one example, there are more.
Adding a passing siding for through trains over this branch would be a great too. You will have to face the consequences. Make this branch rather busy and you will need not only a huge underground staging area, but also dedicated yard leads; in general you will have to keep the switching moves from the main. All these items are space-hogs.
BTW I second the opinion of Stein: you could make a drawing of your space. Maybe there are better footprints for your railroad.
Paul
steinjrMmm - you know what level of activity you want. But do you know when and where the place you model is located, and what the trains are carrying? Will your trains be Heissler or Shay geared engines lugging cars with logs out of the forest to a paper mill or planing mill or some such thing?
But do you know when and where the place you model is located, and what the trains are carrying?
Yes. I thought I was pretty clear about that in my first post. Late steam era transition. Independent logging branch (I settled on this after the first post) which interfaces to PRR.
"The layout is meant to show a branch operation that takes either coal or lumber from a private short line and have its material delivered to industries which then produce various products, which are picked up by the PRR. The branch operation uses a leased two truck Shay. The PRR motive power is 2 Decopods, a "borrowed" C&O Mike, and various diesels (NW2, RS1, RS3, H-16-44, SD-9, FA2, and the like). There is occasional passenger service."
I even have a pretty good idea of the part of Pennsylvania where the layout would be set.
steinjrWhy do you want to model both the branch line and the mainline?
A few reasons. So I can model the transition of material to be picked up by a PRR freight, to go off somewhere to the bigger world. To have a small amount of goods from that bigger world to come in and get delivered to the smaller world seen in the layout. To be able to run staged consists through the environment so I can just have a variety of traffic go through even if it doesn't stop. That will also introduce the need to deal with timing of traffic.
steinjrOne elegant solution is one used by modeler Dave Steensland on his Silverton and Lake City railroad might work for a layout for you (if you like the idea).
I will have to look at this.
tony22 A small operation on a branch for two to three trains a day worth of work, and some related businesses to where the product can be brought after getting dropped off at the yard.
Mmm - you know what level of activity you want.
Is your main focus on modeling the source of the traffic (ie the logging camp and part of the ride through the forest) or the destination for the traffic (ie the paper mill), or is modeling cars being transferred between trains or something else?
Why do you want to model both the branch line and the mainline?
One elegant solution is one used by modeler Dave Steensland on his Silverton and Lake City railroad might work for a layout for you (if you like the idea).
He has several branch lines on his layout, one of which is owned by a lumber company which picks up cars from the forest (just modeled as a single track hidden behind some trees). He is not trying to model a logging camp, the engine running around at the logging camp or the entire line from the junction to the logging camp.
The locomotive disappears behind the trees. A little while later it will reappear, pulling loaded log cars. How much later is up to you.
The loaded log cars are pulled down to a tiny three track town. Some loaded log cars are left in the town, and some loaded log cars are pushed down to the local lumber mill.
The train brings back empty log cars and boxcars loaded with forestry products from the local lumber mill.
The empty log cars are brought "back to the logging site" (ie behind the trees), so the loggers can start loading them.
An outbound train is put together from the loaded log cars, loaded box cars from the mill, and maybe one or two cars from the town team track).
The train head down the line towards the interchange with the bigger railroad (which can also be a hidden track, or a visible foreground scene in front of the hidden forest track). At the interchange track there will be inbound cars - empty log cars, empty boxcars for the mill and loaded cars for the town.
The train drops off the outbound cars, picks up the inbound cars, and head back to town.
In town the cars for the town is spotted at the team track. Empty box cars are spotted at the lumber mill. Empty lumber cars are taken "to the logging camp" (ie pushed into the hidden track).
Your single train makes six-seven trips between various destinations during a day. If desired, you could use two trains - one pulling logs from the forest to the town, and between the town and the mill, and one pulling trains between the town and the junction/interchange.
Quite a bit of train work here.
Nothing here that says you have to find staging space for three trains.All the staging you need is one track that can hold say 6 lumber cars and one engine out of sight.
Nothing here that says you have to model both the source and the destination of loads. The source can be abstracted away just as easy as the destination.
Trains on the mainline can be abstracted down to "someone must have left these cars here for us" and "someone will come along and pick up the cars we leave for them" at the junction.
Nothing here that says you have to have continuous run.
Just a few ideas. Not a given that any of these will work for you directly. But they might give you new ideas.
But for a small layout, I would try to not model the run - I would pick one or two scenes to model, and focus on what the trains will do in those scenes. You won't get a long run on a small layout, no matter what you do. But you could get a couple of nice scenes.
Incidentally - have you show a drawing of your entire room yet? It may be possible to find space for a layout in some other configuration than what you have drawn so far.
Paulus JasI've been reading through all the postings in the thread and i have to second Spacemouse. You don't have a vision. If you need a dedicated yard-lead depends on the number of trains you will be running over the logging branch. Right now there is just one camp on the hill, so with two trains a day you've had it. Also the main is not heavy used; so why need a yard-lead? But add staging at the end of the branch; suggesting more camps further up the mountain and add an underground huge staging area to create a busy mainline with frequent meets of long freights and you are in a different league.
If you need a dedicated yard-lead depends on the number of trains you will be running over the logging branch. Right now there is just one camp on the hill, so with two trains a day you've had it. Also the main is not heavy used; so why need a yard-lead? But add staging at the end of the branch; suggesting more camps further up the mountain and add an underground huge staging area to create a busy mainline with frequent meets of long freights and you are in a different league.
Paul, I will be the first to admit I'm not a visionary when it comes to layout planning, but I will know what I like when I see it. I will say that I don't feel like anything I've come up with so far is ideal; that why I'm asking you guys!
Having said that I do know what I'd like. You can sort of see that from the earlier plans - staging for three or four trains that can be brought in as throughs or yard destination. A small operation on a branch for two to three trains a day worth of work, and some related businesses to where the product can be brought after getting dropped off at the yard. The problem with these earlier plans is that they was too much track, with some unrealstic conditions (long overpass over the yard etc). IMO there would have been no room at all for decent scenery or structures. Don't let my inability to insert scenery into an Anyrail plan mislead you. I just don't have the knack yet for drawing that stuff in.
So to your point, in the last couple of plans I am figuring out the right compromise. The passing siding in the back would stage maybe two shorter trains. Would I like more? Yes, but then I'd have to add another staging track there, and then we get back into maybe too much track. And as for givens and druthers, I rather not have a lot of buried staging. I'm afraid that will be a maintenance headache. That's why I made modifications to your plan so that a good part of the passing/staging tracks are exposed (but view-blocked) along with the turnouts.
Paulus Jas In my plan I've drawn some kind of back-yard railroading with just a few trains a day. What's your call?
I thought it was nice, but I also thought that's what I tried to capture in the first plan of my last post. The modifications I made to the branch were an attempt to maybe create two small operations instead of one. Maybe the yard is still a bit too big, but again keep in mind my though to use one of those view-blocked sidings as staging. Please ignore the fact that I haven't yet figured out how to add scenery.
The second plan I thought was a reasonable compromise to get enough height for a single branch industry (logging in this case), and use the shelf as a location off the main for some follow-on businesses. I figured 5" height in N scale would be enough to suggest the needed separation, especially if that entire hill was spotted with trees. Hmm, I just had a thought as to maybe how to improve that section.
The yard may still be a bit too spread out.
Paul, I'm not sure I know what the difference is between having a vision and knowing what I'd like. As I said above I think know what I'd like, but this space is forcing me to figure out how to compromise.
Hi,
I've been reading through all the postings in the thread and i have to second Spacemouse. You don't have a vision.
In my plan I've drawn some kind of back-yard railroading with just a few trains a day. What's your call?
The same applies to scenery. Scenery can be more then just building some stuff; it is about creating scenes or vingettes. And so you will have to allocate space for this kind of "scenery". Questions like how can I separate the logging camp, high in the mountains from the junction down in the valley pop up. The reason why I even left some space for a roundhouse on my plan was to have a scenic divider between the junction and the two curves; with still space left for a road behind the roundhouse.
When looking at logging camps; most tracks are spread out and few in number; coalmines were the opposite.
Only after you are very specific about what you want to achieve, you will come away from the just throwing in some tracks and just running some trains phases.
Have fun
Okay. I created two variations on what you had suggested Paul. I think they are both along the same sort of line. When making these I kept being troubled by it appearing that I'd have to use the branch lead as the switching lead for the yard. Not sure how I feel about that. But how are these looking from a progress point of view?
Paulus Jas Hi Tony, I see one problem, your logging branch starts from level zero at the throat of the staging tracks. Then you immediately have a flat run-around, so no length to gain any height. Your basic problem is, you have no scenery plan. If you want a logging line high in the mountains you need the miles to get there. So drawing the valley-junction and the logging scene as far as apart as possible I came up with this: ......... The river and the road are dividing the two scenes; but an awkward to reach staging area remains. A cassette or a removable extension could be the solution. Paul
Hi Tony,
I see one problem, your logging branch starts from level zero at the throat of the staging tracks. Then you immediately have a flat run-around, so no length to gain any height.
Your basic problem is, you have no scenery plan. If you want a logging line high in the mountains you need the miles to get there.
So drawing the valley-junction and the logging scene as far as apart as possible I came up with this:
.........
The river and the road are dividing the two scenes; but an awkward to reach staging area remains. A cassette or a removable extension could be the solution.
This is an interesting variation, Paul. I was actually thinking about bringing the branch operation all the way around to the shelf. It would make for a more realistic elevation change. But the hidden passing / staging was one of the things I wanted to get away from with my older plans. You've given me a bit to think about and play with. Let me see what I come up with based on this alternative.
steinjr tony22 So once again I ask the smart folk here to tear it apart. Is it "too boring"? Do I have enough going on to represent real, interesting operations? Should I try to make the passing sidings bigger? Remind me - is the top up against a wall? If so, I would try to not have a lot of sidings and spurs by the back wall - it will be a major pain to reach clean across the layout to do switching on the far side of the layout. As for "having enough going on to represent real, interesting operations" - here is a layout design by Lance Mindheim,........... What do you want to be able to do on your layout? What is "real, interesting operations" to you? Once you are clear on what kind of real operations you want to simulate, you will see whether your track plan supports your desired type of operations or not.
tony22 So once again I ask the smart folk here to tear it apart. Is it "too boring"? Do I have enough going on to represent real, interesting operations? Should I try to make the passing sidings bigger?
So once again I ask the smart folk here to tear it apart. Is it "too boring"? Do I have enough going on to represent real, interesting operations? Should I try to make the passing sidings bigger?
Remind me - is the top up against a wall?
If so, I would try to not have a lot of sidings and spurs by the back wall - it will be a major pain to reach clean across the layout to do switching on the far side of the layout.
As for "having enough going on to represent real, interesting operations" - here is a layout design by Lance Mindheim,...........
What do you want to be able to do on your layout? What is "real, interesting operations" to you? Once you are clear on what kind of real operations you want to simulate, you will see whether your track plan supports your desired type of operations or not.
Thanks Stein. Yes, the back of the layout is against the wall. I did struggle with the back passing sidings / staging. I thought it might work out if I remote control those back turnouts and the leading turnout to the logging area. The rest of the logging turnouts should be within reach (I'm reasonably tall). I can also pull the heart of the logging area forward a bit.
I'm a poor judge of what's operationally interesting but "sufficient". Recall my earlier plans which were much more packed with trackage. As much as I would love a lot of track to reflect a transition from a small resource operation (logging or coal) to processing and end use - with a decent yard and interchange to a Class 1 line - it ain't gonna happen in the space I have. So in the space I have I think what I can get away with are smaller versions of these scenes - less track so that there's enough rom for actual scenery and structures. But this is where I'm out of my depth. How do I get that "work the land, process the goods, deliver it to business that can use it" and include the ability for a variety of through freight and small passenger service - in a more limited but still interesting way?
I like the shelf plan, BTW. I'll have to look at it a bit more.
tony22So once again I ask the smart folk here to tear it apart. Is it "too boring"? Do I have enough going on to represent real, interesting operations? Should I try to make the passing sidings bigger?
As for "having enough going on to represent real, interesting operations" - here is a layout design by Lance Mindheim, drawn from memory (so it may be a little off in dimensions etc - but you get the basic idea, and I feel to lazy to go find the book):
Two 18" shelves in an L-shape. One runaround. Three yard tracks. Three background industries. One interchange track. Two foreground industries. Industry mix selected to give a large variety of cars delivered and picked up.
Lance's design allows you to simulate cars from from off the layout to your little industrial park (cars parked on the yard tracks or interchange track before you start your session). You can do car sorting in the yard. You get to make pickups and deliveries of cars, including runaround movements.You can simulate routing cars - some to the outbound track in your own yard, some to interchange where another railroad will pick them up "later".
It pretty much takes care of the retail side of railroading - _without_ using a huge amount of floor space or having any parts that are inaccessible or crowded.
Smile, Stein
Maxman, the square size is 13-1/2". I'm not wedded to the switchbacks. I had one in my last layout and have to admit it was a bit of a pain. I can rework these areas to be a bit more straightforward. If you have any suggestions for how to make these two areas a bit more interesting to work but not unnecessarily complicated I'd be happy to take a look at it. Remember the back right is the logging area and the shelf would be related end-item industries with maybe a mix of some small town structures.
-Tony
Is that a 12 inch grid on your plan? I see that you have at least two of those switchback-type spurs on the right side of the plan. I hate them. They always seem contrived to me, and were in vogue a long time ago when track plan designers thought that anything that made it more difficult to accomplish what you needed to accomplish was a good thing. Our club layout had a bunch of them, and all but one of them has been torn out. They are interesting to switch the first time, but after that it just becomes an unnecessary pain. Besides, with the lengths you have drawn, each leg of the spur will hold maybe one car and a small switcher. This means that any cars that are on the inbound leg of the spur would need to be removed before the switcher could pull in and spot the second car. Maybe you have more patience than I do, but that iteration will get old very fast.
I wanted to revive this thread and apologize to all who had been helping me. A lot of things happened last year that put my layout progress on hold - some extended travel for work, my in-laws moving into an adult living community nearby and needing some frequent help to get used to the new area, and a short stay in the hospital (fortunately nothing too serious). But the monthly issues of MRR kept coming in and I kept just a few brain cells focused on eventually getting something designed.The time away helped, I think. It may have given me a fresh perspective that I wanted to toss out here for comment. I decided to get rid of that overpass bridge/trestle (I finally had to admit it would have made for a very unrealistic design), and I scaled back a bit on the trackage. Again I'm sorry for those jumping in who will now have to get caught up by starting at the top of an old thread.So in this new version the logging spur comes off the mainline from the back left and runs up about a 3% grade to the working end on the right. That should give something for the Shay to do. The tracks in the back on the mainline will then be view-blocked by the tree-lined ridge, but open so that I could get on a step stool and do some maintenance if needed. The back trackage will also let me do just a little staging - one long consist or two smaller ones. I also decided to not do long stretches of tunnelized track. I may cover the back right with a small hill to extend the forest industry section and make for a forest that seems to go back from the layout. The yard is smaller than on the older layouts in this thread, but I did decide to keep the TT. I just have too much steam and I'd like to be abe to roster some of it sometimes. The TT is the size of the Walthers job, although I may try to go to that Peco job that some have motorized. The TT leads will support the coaling, water, ash dump, and maybe even a small diesel pump. I'm afraid the yard may be a bit small, and the passing sidings as well. I left enough room at the front edge of the benchwork for a small passenger dropoff.I wanted to leave enough room for structures and scenery this time. The open section in the center will be for a small town at the edge of the logging area. The spur tracks in front of the logging tracks will be at zero elevation and would be the lumber processing area. The lower spur doubles as the yard lead. I'm thinking maybe in the space behind these spurs and in front of the logging ridge there'd be enough room for a small pond to hold the dumped logs. It might trail off to the right and cross under the mainline just behind that turnout. Then on the shelf would be other related industries - maybe a furniture factory and similar, a small diner etc. You'll have to picture in your imaginations what this might look like with all the above stuff in place.So once again I ask the smart folk here to tear it apart. Is it "too boring"? Do I have enough going on to represent real, interesting operations? Should I try to make the passing sidings bigger?
Remember it's no good having an industrial spur track if you don't have room for an industry for it to serve!!
wjstixI think it was John Armstrong who once said if you take a typical trackplan and remove about 1/3rd of the track, you'll have it about right.
But Stix, it's hard following the master when there's all that open space to play with!
I know. I gotta stop slobbering.
If you use the penisula as a staging yard (even if you have to double over to get trains long enough) you really don't need the big yard in the middle of the layout. If you want you could use a couple of yard tracks there if you're serving a large industry like a coal mine.
I would look at narrowing the center to make access easier - think sort of a waterwings idea. That may also make the layout look better, less rigid oval shaped.
I think it was John Armstrong who once said if you take a typical trackplan and remove about 1/3rd of the track, you'll have it about right.
Coal is the most obvious for SW PA, but other industries can be equally enriching. In my town there was a glass and a tire manufacturing. BTW: a glass facility could take you whole layout if you wanted. Also there were distributors of groceries, produce, and agricultural supplies. These would be available in any medium sized town. Autos would be delivered to a team track.
If you were to have series of small mines you could have a facility to grade the coal and sort it into outgoing trains.
In Somerset PA there was a yard that worked several of the larger mines and made up turns that took empties to mines and brought back loads. The loads were then distributed for shipping both east and west to the PRR, B&O Nickle Plate, Western Maryland and Erie.
What I'm saying here is lay out your industries. See what you need to make a layout out of it.
And don't forget staging. Staging makes your ops plan work.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Chip, those are good, solid pieces of guidance. You may have read my first post in this thread, which is abreviated but indicates some of the real world points which form the basis for this RR. I think what's happened is that in the goal to get to a plan I've lost some of the focus on that. I do need to remember what started all this.
PRR, NW or SW PA locale, meaning woody and hilly/mountain territory. Logging or coal shortline linking to PRR where product is provided to related industries. I've spent a bit of time on PRRTHS and viewing 1940-1950 era maps of that area. I think if I had the option of defining my own layout space I'd have a much easier time of it. I'm growing to believe the layout space - which is like an anchor at this point - is stuck in my head as "the thing I need to work around". Still, your advice is in line with my 35 years of reading from Armstrong and others, so I'll have to figure out how to recalibrate.
Tony,
A possible reason you are having trouble with designing a plausible layout is that you are working backwards. You are looking to place track, with little or no reason as to why. The why will be some sort of balance between running a railroad and developing a scenic element through which you run trains. Personally, I go about 50-50 and have allocated the space on my layout to represent that. I'm including my track plan so that you can get a sense of where I'm going with this. If you were to calculate it out, I think you would find that you have a bout 50% more scale area than I do.
So I started the design with the idea that I wanted a tressle bridge over a waterfall and I wanted a track running along the curves of a river. I also knew that I wanted a balance between yard operations and industrial switching. The current layout will support 11 trains averaging 13 cars without moving the same car twice. That aspect is enabled by my staging. I also knew I wanted a point to point feel while maintaining the ability to run a loop. Notice that if you working either city, all you see is that city and if you are running along the river, all you see is the scenery.
So how does that relate to you? What I'm trying to say here is that you need to think about the finished product you want to create and make some decisions. with these decisions a cascade is created.
Road name, location and era determines scenery
The scenery will have considerations--will the layout be flat or hilly or mountainous. Will there be water? Will you need bridges?
Industries are reliant on geographic location and era.
Industries are reliant upon either available models or your ability to scratch build. This is important because you need to know how your track needs to address your model. The model also will need access roads and parking.
Once you have determined your industries, you will have an idea of how many cars will be needed and how often trains will be needed to serve those industries. From this you will be able to determine the staging and yard requirements.
Now you can start thinking about how you are going to make it all work together--the track plan.
Okay, so you don't have the experience to work this all out on an imaginary railroad,. What do you do? Start looking at the actual track configuration of the prototypes. Once you see what they do you can imitate them. It is a lot easier to get it right copying the real deal than it is making it up.
NW, the more I look at your plan the more I like it. It's simple but effective. I've started to put it into AnyRail but have nore yet finished, as during that last post I'd started on a couple of alternatives.
I've come up with two somewhat new thoughts for the space. The first one is a much more straightforward twice-around. It is not close to being done, but I wanted to post it as it is a more basic type of mainline layout. The green track would be a combined A/D track, and you can see where I posted how the yard lead and engine service could be either on the right or left side of the yard. In the interest of clarity I hid the hidden trackage, but added letters to identify entrance to the hidden tracks across the plan. This one does have between the "B" points, hidden, a three track passing running right under the green track. That means buried turnouts, but I would plan to make that level accessible from the front in case 0-5-0 action is needed. Because there is no reverse in this plan a TT would be part of the yard.
The next plan is a more radical rethink of my efforts. You can pretty much see what it's all about. Like the above plan it will have a three track passing under the yard area (between the "A" points) with 0-5-0 access. I put in a TT but I guess it really isn't necessary with the wye. Plenty of room in the middle for industries, but I had to give up my elevated branch, and the minimum curves on this one are much sharper than any of the previous plans.
Thoughts as always are greatly appreciated.
I appreciate all this work, NW. I'll put this one into AnyRail and then give it a run on TrainPlayer.
Here's how I see this operating.
1. Get engine from roundhouse and a caboose. Work the cars in the yard to put together a local train, which leaves the yard and heads out of the yard and around the loop on the right.
2. Goes over the bridge or tunnel that crosses over the lower level loop (in blue)
3. continue across top from right to the left and continue around the black upper outer left loop, headed down grade, and continue across the front on the blue mainline (blue is lowest elevation track).
4. leave train on lower right corner of layout blue mainline and switch the industrial area on the bottom right peninsula.
5. put train back together and continue on around the blue mainline loop on right to back and climb across back to the top left corener, where separate train and back into the tracks the lead from the top left to the middle right
6. set out cars and pick up new cars. Turn train around so that it is ready to head back to yard with all the switched cars.
7. back out onto main and continue back across the track at top to the right and head down grade and arrive to front right of layout on the lower blue mainline.
8. continue across front to the lower left corner and switch the trainling point siding there.
9. continue around the left side loop, climbing around the side and across the back.
10. continue around the right side upper loop (black) and take train into yard to be switched.
11. put caboose onto track andservice locomotive.
You could probably add a staging track somewhere. along the back, or along the back of the lower right peninsula. Maybe even run a track directly under the front black (upper mainline) that comes out onto the red lower mainline with a turnout. You could have a bit of separation to have some sort of hill, or to save space use some sort of rock face or retaining wall. Maybe even put it under the layout table top, but exposed along the front edge and scenic it to look like a cut-away tunnel. The plus side of this would be easy maintenance. It would be pretty large, and not extremely realistic, but worth the effort to scenic, because of the amount of operation you open up with the bigger mainline.
The red loop on the right serves as a yard lead, and since the to right loops cross over each other, and are a larger radius, so you should have enough space for the red loop as a yard lead that is not too tight.
I know there are some grade issues to work out. But with a little work, I think there is plenty of space to do so. I also realize you have two tracks along the back that have grade going opposite directions. You could camouflage this with strategically placed buildings and or trees. Just keep them carefully placed so you have access. But you don't have turnouts on these straight tracks, so access shouldn't be much problem.
If there is space you can put a road along the back edge of the yard, and hopefully fit store fronts along the back of the road, but in front of the back industrial tracks. This would provide some separation of the layout and keep it from looking like the dreaded "shagetti bowl"
It should be obvious by now that I'm sort of obsessive-compulsive when I've latched on to an idea.
So I went back to the original Layout 2 from the first page and worked in a reverse loop capability - let's call it Layout 4. I've decided that a branch, some kind of yard, and reversing are among the givens for my attempts. I took the branch part from Layout 3. It does still have the elevated crossover to the back, but I'm hoping in this case it looks a bit more prototypical than in the other layout.
I'm afraid my lack of imagination is showing.
NW, I would be happy to see any possibilties for this space that allows for continuous running and a reasonable set of industries.
Do you need a reverse loop? In your case, it seems to create more problems than it solves? I suggest using a track that loops around the outside twice and crosses over itself on the right side. Or is this not what you are looking for at all?
It would give you a longer mainline run out to your industries from the yard. I don't know what type of trains you want to run, but it seems like a local switching train is what this size/trackplan would support. Especially in the instance of what I am describing because I didn't plan in any staging (not that you couldn't try to fit some in)
Move the yard parallel to the front straight section, and put a siding off the back straight section that leads to an industry or small industrial area, and come off the lower loop onto your industrial section in the lower right.
I drew it out with pen and paper pretty easily. I can upload a version if you are interested.
Don't be afraid to say "that's way off from my desires". I won't be running your layout, and no offense will be taken. I like playing around with track plans.
Without going into a lot of details, what will make your track work or not work is the operational plan you have for moving merchandise around your layout. The amount of track you have running around in circles doesn't make much difference one way or the other. If you get bored running around in a circle, you will get bored running around in two circles.
If your railroad is essentially an east-west railroad, think of how merchandise gets from the west onto your layout, gets distributed, then either returns west or heads east with empties and products. How does it arrive from the east? If it is a branch line how does it get merchandise from the main line.
Once you have that fixed in your mind, think of what you have to have on your layout and make it work. What buildings will be needed? Support roads? Parking? Scenery? Trackage comes after you have a good idea of how the rest will work out.
The last thing you want is to design a money/labor intensive layout that does not function.
Going back to the earlier plan suggested later on the second page, with the depressed main in blue, you were worried about the grade. I would be as well if that curved segment were all that had to conform to an elevation change. However, you can split the difference and still get that segment out of the way as suggested by its author. What you do is depress the blue segment half of the needed grade, and then raise the lead and yard, plus engine servicing, by the other "half" needed to get the minimum clearances. You get some here and some there, with the two somes summing to something useful.
Does that make sense?
-Crandell
I understand. Without elevations, it is hard to tell what level everything is on. I guess what I had in mind was to reverse elevations. What's now high, make low, and what's now low, make high. Could that work?