dehusman Both designs have yards that have issues. #1 the long curves will waste space and cut the capacity of the yard in half. #2 half of the yard is reached by a switchback and so will be way less functional than any other possible designs. I would use the basic layout of #1 and flip the yard to the left instead of to the right and then put the turntable on the peninsula. A big turntable is 130 ft which is only 10" in diameter in N scale so it should fit on the peninsula with no problem. #1 has a better industrial area also. I would put a passing siding by the industrial area. I would add a pair of sidings to the siding on the lower level on the right end of the layout, to be used as hidden staging.
Both designs have yards that have issues. #1 the long curves will waste space and cut the capacity of the yard in half. #2 half of the yard is reached by a switchback and so will be way less functional than any other possible designs. I would use the basic layout of #1 and flip the yard to the left instead of to the right and then put the turntable on the peninsula. A big turntable is 130 ft which is only 10" in diameter in N scale so it should fit on the peninsula with no problem.
#1 has a better industrial area also. I would put a passing siding by the industrial area.
I would add a pair of sidings to the siding on the lower level on the right end of the layout, to be used as hidden staging.
Dave, I greatly appreciate the input. Yeah, the yard curves were a real problem for me in #1. Your suggestion to move the shelf is a good one, but the land owner will not let me extend the railroad in that direction. Honestly, though, she's got a point. However, I've been reworking the #1 plan with a yard within that center triangle area. I plan to post it this evening after a bit of cleanup.
I'll have to see if I can fit in hidden sidings there without reducing the radii of the mainline trackage. I'm trying to keep the trackwork 2" in from the edges.
I see what you mean about a good part of the yard in #2 being accessible only through the yard lead. I'll have to remember not to do that in plan #1.
AlienKingModel Rail Cast covered this topic two weeks ago. They talk about using excel to weight your givens and druthers to pick the plan that's best for you. They use their matrices to decide between prototypes, but you could just as easily put in the specific layout elements that differ between the plans. Give it a listen ( http://modelrailcast.com/MrcBlog/Show54.asp ).
Thanks AK. This is one of the nicest G&D evaluation schemes I've seen. I will give it a try when I get home and see what happens.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I've been designing my next layout, but can't seem to decide between two competing plans that I've put together. Could use some help, rock throwing, suggestions, etc.
The dimensions for the layout are 144"W x 36"D. There is also a 12" x 36" detachable shelf that was originally meant to act as a small staging yard (now I'm not so sure). I plan to use a small step stool to deal with the fact that the layout is 30" deep in most areas (the 36" deep sections will be accessible from more than one side). These dimensions cannot be made larger. The scale is N.
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.
The layout is planned to be one "framework" level with risers. That is, no independent double-deck type designs. I was originally thinking a helix in the upper right corner would exit to an upper section along the back (made of foam) that would snake from right to left and represent the logging part of the operation. But the more I think about it the less I like the idea of so much of the visible operating area being taken up by a helix. I might be inclined to consider a lower level staging area.
The first plan is not yet complete, but you can see it is a twice-around with a reverse loop. You can also see that I initially put the yard on the shelf, but I'm planning on moving it to the central triangle area because the approach curves into the yard are too sharp. The thought is to use the shelf for the branch activity. The space on the left may be just big enough for a 9" turntable and a small engine service area. I really would like a TT. Also, not all the industry spurs are in place yet.
The second plan is closer to being done. It has no reverse, but is a bit simpler. It has a nice big yard but a very simple engine service area (the two tracks above the two major track clusters). You can see the branch on this one was placed on the shelf. It may look like I could have put a TT where the yard is, but I tried it and it would have left me with a very small yard.
I'd appreciate getting some sense of where these layouts may not be fundamentally sound, and suggestions as to where either may be improved (keeping in mind the yard and whatnots are not yet in place for #1).
Here they are, Layout1 followed by Layout2 -