nw_fan Is there no way to get rid of that track over the yard? It will look out of place, and the bridge required will be unrealistic. It will always be in the way. Could you move it to the front edge of the layout, and change it to a lower elevation track, that runs right along the front edge on a small 2-4" shelf? If you move it to the outside edge, that might give you room on the right side loop to add a yard lead to the inside of the turns. The roundhouse tracks look kinda strange, but I realize they are a compromise. Remember, on a real yard this would be bad because cars would be rolling into the turntable pit or park locomotives pretty regularly. Is there no way you can move the turntable a bit, or shorten the industry tack below to get a few tracks to park engines on along the left side or bottom of turntable?
Is there no way to get rid of that track over the yard? It will look out of place, and the bridge required will be unrealistic. It will always be in the way. Could you move it to the front edge of the layout, and change it to a lower elevation track, that runs right along the front edge on a small 2-4" shelf? If you move it to the outside edge, that might give you room on the right side loop to add a yard lead to the inside of the turns.
The roundhouse tracks look kinda strange, but I realize they are a compromise. Remember, on a real yard this would be bad because cars would be rolling into the turntable pit or park locomotives pretty regularly. Is there no way you can move the turntable a bit, or shorten the industry tack below to get a few tracks to park engines on along the left side or bottom of turntable?
NW, I'm trying to picture what you've suggested at the top of your post, but I'm having trouble. I'm not sure I see how then I'd be able to get the elevation I'd need to feed into the segment that leads to the shelf. I know it may be hard to see, but that turnout at the back edge just to the right of the reverse loop closure, midpoint across the length of the plan, is what gets me to that part of the layout.
I do agree about that lengthy cross-over track, however. I think it's a problem.
I'll have to do some head scratching to see what I can do.
Well, I'm back. TZ, I thought very much about what you said and I can't actually disagree with it, but for some reason I keep going back to the original concept I had.
I'm getting a little slap happy at this point, but in this version I fixed the reverse loop (the RL in the original was actually not "reversing"). I also decided to clean up the yard a bit and get rid of the TT trackage and roundhouse. Doing this allows me to extend the yard tracks and essentially use the TT in place of runarounds within the yard. Yes, I'll lose the roundhouse but I can store my motive power at the tail end of the yard tracks. I also hid the entire back stretch and put in staging tracks. I know hidden staging at the back of the layout is considered asking for trouble, but I wanted to have a way to move trains on and off the layout to generate some variability.To help in looking at the plan, the frontmost trackage is at the lowest elevation. The yard area is at mid-elevation, and the shelf industry is at the highest elevation. The yard lead actually will have to have part of it on a bridge because it passes over that lower main line bit. I don't know if anywhere on the PRR there was a situation like this.What's the take on this one? TZ, I suspect I know what you'll say. I actualy have a very different option that is more in line with your recommendations, but I still feel like I need to go this way for a bit.
What I am seeing is that more and more suggestions are to add more stuff. At the rate this is going I am afraid it is becoming a twice around figure-8 with as much track crammed in as is possible. More isn't necessarily better. In this case the layout is so small, there is little need for a larger yard. If anything, there is a need for someplace for all those cars in the trains made up or broken down in the yard to come from and go to. I really see no need to extend the yard tracks right up to the edge of the round house wall. Likewise, a yard lead that is 1/4 the length of the main line gets into my overkill category. On a smaller layout some less efficient things are what allow it to be operated with some interest.
The insights you are getting here are quite helpful.
A very subtle, but useful benchwork tip, is what SIr_Madog alludes to in his layout suggestions. There are no "inside square" inner-layout corners.
What you do is construct "equal-sided triangles" and add them to each inside corner. This is the same shape as the 45 degree triangle you would have used in your high school drafting class. The two equal sides might have lengths of 6", 12", 18", 24", etc.
Benefit #1 - You now have larger radius curves, which are critical for decapod steamers, and passenger cars, and; those larger radius curves can be extended over part of the new triangle layout additions.
Benefit #2 - More inner layout space is now opened up for track planning changes, or better scenery depth-perception.
Benefit #3 - Layout fascia is easier to install onto a 45 degree angle than a 90 degree angle.
For example, looking back at your original layout thoughts, what simple "larger radius" changes are now possible, with a benchwork triangle to each inner corner?
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
Hi tony22,
I am fascinated with the changes suggested for your layout. The underground idea would eliminate the need for the long pass-over across the yard.You might even have the pink main on the left end disappear underground at the same point as the blue main disappears. Then have the pink reappear at the bottom left, (so that it doesn't interfere with the blue line underground). This would add to the realism of not seeing a train loop back on itself. Another idea might be that instead of the left outer loops going underground, you might make it hidden by a liftout tunnel, on top of which you can place structures. I like the round house in the position shown in the last diagram. This is what meant, in my previous Posted idea, when I suggested reversing the position of the turn table and round house. It gives you a lot longer yard track space. I am in the process of making a lot of my scenery mounted on Luan rectangles, or ovals that can be lifted out ,or hinged, for repairs and access to tracks behind the scenery. It looks like you will have a terrific layout, when completed ! Bob Hahn
... thanks for the idea - the radii in the yard might become a problem. As I am still in the idea collection phase, any help and idea is welcomed. The room I will be able to build my layout is about 15´ x 12´, but I have to incorporate a bed somehow...
Thanks a lot NW. I will roll this into a variation of that plan and see what happens.
Edit: a bit later...
NW, I'm not so sure this will work as well as I first thought. I started to bury the blue part as you offered and it began to look like I would then have too large a grade for the elevated branch section. You can see that from the righthand turnout that is located just a bit after the part that you colored blue. I think I'd be pushing around a 4% grade to get over the curved track on the lower right - maybe a bit more. I will keep working on it, however.
The twice around is very nice. What if you incorporate your turntable/roundhouse into a "peninsula" like the 1st plan(but in the top right corner), and go with a more conventional yard that curves around the top corner?
The problem of a deep corner is offset by having the center of the yard located there, so you won't have much coupling or uncoupling to do there.
Here's what I thought I would do with this plan space...
1. the blue line runs under the yard in the center, and you can keep as much or as little below grade as you are comfortable. Some people are against having track below bench, but if you use it regularly, it stays pretty clean. Putting it below the layout, would also let you widen the radius of the inner loop, and put it over top the current outer loop)
2. pink (along with blue) is the mainline. I did this because it was hard to follow with all the other track.
3. brown is the expanded yard area, which fits better and can be longer.
4. green is the yard lead and beginning of yard ladder. (you can certainly adjust the ladder to include more track, etc.... but the bigger lead, would be a huge bonus for whoever works the yard while trains run.)
NW, anything is open at this point except the dimensions of the benchwork and the desire to stay away from helices in order to maximize the use of "open running" for this layout size. Something different that would support my stated "purpose" would be welcome and considered.
Are you open to somewhat drastic change of the most recent plan? I see a way to increase your yard a lot, and unclutter the layout by burying the outer main from the left side under the layout. Once the yard gets reworked, you can create a very long yard lead by routing it around the right side, between the two mainline tracks. I drew overtop your plan with colored lines and will upload from home this afternoon.
tony22,OK,my bad. Didn't realize it was elevated.BILL
Hey, this has started as Tony22´s thread and I did not mean to jump on it. I really enjoy collecting comments and builds on my thoughts. Modelling US prototype is still very rare in my country, and there is a distinct difference between European and US practices.
Anyhow, for the time being, this is my favourite plan:
I plan to have a bridge spanning the open section, which will be designed as a lift-out. Being 6´5" tall, I hate duck-unders!
Bill, I'm not sure a TT in the upper right would be the best place. That's part of the elevated stretch that leads to the branch operations on the shelf. If I send my major motive power up there to get turned, they'd have a ways to go to get back down to where they'd pick up their consists.
Ulrich, I like the "open" qualities of your first plan. I also like the way the industry tracks are set around the layout and the nice visual of the double track across that pass-thru. Were you thinking of placing a bridge structure there?
Of course, with the second choice you have a turntable () and a twice-around plan, which opens up longer running times. I'm not sure, but if you don't count passing tracks I think there may be a bit less yard storage in the second plan, however. They may be about the same. And of course, with the TT you can reverse locos.
Hey, if I could choose between your options I'd have figured out my own by now!
I relly like the first of the two layouts. If a TT is one of your "druthers" one could be worked in either in the upper right corner, without engine facilities or else in triangle area in the lower section.Both plans are nice though. BILL
... or is it this one?
I don´t know...
Tony22,
with all that input you are collecting through this forum, I am eager to see, what your "preliminary final version will look like.
Btw, this is the version I favor right now for my layout:
HHPATH56 Hi Tony22 I love the suggestions from all of us, as to how to improve your layout design. Have you considered putting the roundhouse on the left side. It would free-up more room for yard tracks and allow for more "drill track", so that you don't tie-up the mainline with your switching operations. I would like to see one or two long "run-arounds", but the layout is tending to be too "busy" with track and no room for structures. It is not quite clear as to which of the tracks are overpasses, from your diagram.I assume that you have allowed for a maximum of 2-3% incline. Bob Hahn
Hi Tony22
I love the suggestions from all of us, as to how to improve your layout design. Have you considered putting the roundhouse on the left side. It would free-up more room for yard tracks and allow for more "drill track", so that you don't tie-up the mainline with your switching operations. I would like to see one or two long "run-arounds", but the layout is tending to be too "busy" with track and no room for structures. It is not quite clear as to which of the tracks are overpasses, from your diagram.I assume that you have allowed for a maximum of 2-3% incline. Bob Hahn
Bob, my brain is not working. For the TT, are you referring to the plan I posted at 6:01 PM, or Layout 2? I'm not sure how much further left I can put the TT in the revised Layout 1 plan!
Your assumption is correct about the elevations - haven't put them in yet. It does make it a bit confusing.
I am considering your (and Ulrich's) comments about these plans maybe being too track heavy. It's a dilemma that I'll have to resolve somehow.
Sir Madog ...Both plans have a lot of track per square inch and leave little room for structures, streets, scenery, which provide the spice to our layouts. You will find that sometimes less is more... The second plan looks a lot more "elegant" to me, not as "square" as the first one. Sweeping curves and avoiding track paralleling the layout´s sides add to that realistic look we want to capture. I hope this helps you a little to decide!
...Both plans have a lot of track per square inch and leave little room for structures, streets, scenery, which provide the spice to our layouts. You will find that sometimes less is more...
The second plan looks a lot more "elegant" to me, not as "square" as the first one. Sweeping curves and avoiding track paralleling the layout´s sides add to that realistic look we want to capture.
I hope this helps you a little to decide!
Ulrich, I'll admit that there's a bit of track in both these designs. The funny part is that I started with the idea of a setting in Northwest or Southwest Pennsylvania, which would suggest a more open, rugged environment. Both plans seem to have moved away from this. On the other hand, I know that in my house there is absolutely no additional room for a layout, so I'm stuck trying to balance space vs. operation. The same old story...
As much as I've been focusing on the first plan, I agree that the second has a more "elegant" look to it. I started reworking the yard area on that plan per some of the earlier comments. Perhaps it will be better when I post that update.
What I like also about that plan is that it has its industry trackage placed around the layout. If you count the big industrial area in the right-center as "one" location, there are six separate locations for industrial activity. On the first plan everything is more clustered - there are really only three distinct areas for industry. The big problem I have with the second plan is that I haven't figured out how to add a reverse loop without destroying the fundamental design.
Texas Zepher In the yard there are two locomotive escape tracks. Each one wastes an entire length of track. Move those two tracks to be adjacent to each other so that one escape services both. OR with the position of the turn table, just connect the A/D tracks directly to the turntable and use it for the escape. The yard drill track shares two turnouts with the large radius main line trackage. I would try to rework it so that the yard could be worked without sharing with the mainline. There is no run-around track in the industrial area. I think the industrial area on the peninsula could be made more interesting. I think the two curved industry tracks north of the turntable make it look crowded, will be difficult to scenic (curved loading docks?), and troublesome to operate. It might be more interesting to move the turntable a little to the north and add service tracks for the loco facilities. A place to spot the hoppers bringing in coal, sand, a place for a tank car bringing in oil, a place for box, flat, and gondolas cars bringing in parts and supplies, a place for a gondola or a hopper to take out the ashes.
In the yard there are two locomotive escape tracks. Each one wastes an entire length of track. Move those two tracks to be adjacent to each other so that one escape services both. OR with the position of the turn table, just connect the A/D tracks directly to the turntable and use it for the escape.
The yard drill track shares two turnouts with the large radius main line trackage. I would try to rework it so that the yard could be worked without sharing with the mainline.
There is no run-around track in the industrial area.
I think the industrial area on the peninsula could be made more interesting.
I think the two curved industry tracks north of the turntable make it look crowded, will be difficult to scenic (curved loading docks?), and troublesome to operate. It might be more interesting to move the turntable a little to the north and add service tracks for the loco facilities. A place to spot the hoppers bringing in coal, sand, a place for a tank car bringing in oil, a place for box, flat, and gondolas cars bringing in parts and supplies, a place for a gondola or a hopper to take out the ashes.
TZ, thanks for providing so much to think about. About the escape tracks - agreed. It felt wasteful when I was putting them in; I'll have to revise that.
Woops! The placement of the yard drill track merge was just a mistake. I thought I had joined it to that section just under where it seems to cross over that mainline E-W run (even though it doesn't really "cross-over", I just haven't put in the elevations yet). Consider it fixed.
Your two comments on the shelf industrial area are well taken. Just not sure what to do about that section yet. I'm afraid with the drill track in place on that shelf I may have narrowed my options for interesting trackage for that upper elevation branch industry.
About the curved industrial tracks. I can get rid of them, but I'm not quite sure I can picture your suggestions in its place. Could you point me to an example?
See my response also to Ulrich's thoughts.
Hi, I know what you feel like - I am torn between 4 diffrent plans for my layout "in being" and cannot make up my mind, which way to go!
I took a clos look at both plans, and aside from commenting on operational issues, I would like to input my 2 cents worth on this:
Both plans have a lot of track per square inch and leave little room for structures, streets, scenery, which provide the spice to our layouts. You will find that sometimes less is more...
tony22Let the rock-throwing continue!
Great! Thanks Stein. I've updated my original post.
Here's Layout 1 after tonight's planning update. Viewers will note I did move the yard to the center and the branch to the shelf. The single track on the left edge of the shelf is the yard lead. I also added some hidden staging to the back-right hidden track, kind of along the lines of Dave's suggestion. The long track to the TT will contain the diesel and steam service items.
Let the rock-throwing continue!
Testing:
Layout1d:
Layout 2a:
Seems to work just fine to post images from verizon, if you actually post the link directly to the picture, instead of posting a URL leading to some program that makes a web page containing a picture instead.
Old scout trick to find the URL of a picture contained in a web page: right click on image, look at properties.
Smile, Stein
From the way you had to post the links to the images, I don't think the Verizon web server will allow a direct link to the jpg files. You may be stuck with posting those as links. I have my web site on an outside host, not my ISP's free space, so I can do pretty much what I like as long as I don;t go over my bandwidth limit (which is highly unlikely). Only costs me $1/mo for the service, too.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Thanks Bob. I actually looked up the embedding instructions before I did the first post, but it seems like it was written for specific image servers. What happens if, as in my case, I have them posted on my Verizon home page? Is there some way to just use the direct url and get the same thing to happen? Is there a size limit for the original pic, in order to be able to have it show up as an embedded?
I should have mentioned I'm using Atlas Code 55. I would otherwise have considered triples and double slips. I'm actually trying to find my remaining Code 70 Shinohara stuff from years ago. I had a number of triple turnouts, and single and double slips. Things of beauty. Kind of frustrated with Atlas taking their good old time coming up with these turnout solutions for Code 55. If I find the Shinoharas I may figure how to use them in this planning effort.
Let's start with embedding pics. All digital photos (or scanned diagrams, must first be transferred to a Host eg. Photobucket.com. Give the Album and each photo, or scanned image a Title. Below each photo will be four options. Click on the desired photo and then on the bottom "IMG" option, and the word " Copied" will momentarily appear. Or, if this is a Thumbnail photo, there will be a small square and a rectangle below it. Click on the square and then on the URL rectangle below. There will be a blue border around the desired photo.Go to Edit and click on Copy. Now go to the Trains.com Forum,of your choice, and either create your own Thread, or click on Reply to some other Thread. After inserting any desired Text, click on Enter to move to free space below. Now all you have to do is click on "ctrlV" and the lengthy code for the image will appear. Scroll down to Post, and click on Post. Your Text and Photo will "soon" appear at the end of the Thread. If you desire to "change" or "Delete" your Reply, just click on Edit, and Backspace over the Text or Photo code, that you wish to Delete, or retype a typo. Don't forget to click on Post. Don't be surprised if your original Post appears as you return to the Forum. The changes have been made!
My directions for adding your unique photo as an AVATAR are given on either the first or second page of this Forum.
As to the two versions of your proposed layout. They are both good. The first one has a more adequate "yard". Instead of a ladder of three separate switches, one can use a "triple switch" which releases a lot of trackage to the yard. I like "double-slip switches" to enable the switcher to escape from the yard after dragging in freight cars. It allows the switcher to get behind the cars to push them in. Check the incline in the right peninsula yard, if you intend an overpass. Either of the proposed layouts are excellent! Bob Hahn
.