It's better, but there are some tradeoffs.
* The main will still be fouled when cuts of cars are moved across the double-slip. Seeing how this part of the main will dead-end into the wall (but it will be implied to continue, yes?) there won't be much real through-traffic here anyway, so it may not be a big deal for a little fouling. It's a matter of looks, I guess.
* You will lose the industries on the existing track, so you'll have to think about the tradeoff - eliminating the need for a freight to back up the main while classifying cars vs. two less industries to switch.
Maybe you could mirror this whole section, with the main shooting out diagonally, and the yard continuing straight along the wall. You might still lose those industries, but maybe there's room for two tracks there - one for the yard lead and one along the wall serving some flats.
Edit - one thing about my previous curved turnout idea, since it is a hidden turnout, you should have a plan for maintenance access. Maybe the industry can lift up or something.
Thanks Ulrich - that would work...
My Build Thread: https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/185298.aspx
Follow me on Instagram: https://instagram.com/stephenkingsmaine
Aralai,
if you replace the switch off the main to the yard by a double-slip crossing, you could use the spur going north as a switching lead for the yard.
You still need to cross the main while switching, but you can clear it using the spur. It is, IMHO, more of a "looks" or a logical issue, as the main line going south leads into Nirvana...
odaveThanks for adding the context - forgot about the furnace & hot water heater. Just a couple of things: * There is a grade crossing over the points of two turnouts on the right-hand side. This may look funny and not work well (especially considering the switching mechanisms). Ulrich's edit appears to take care of that. * I don't see how the yard on the left hand side can be worked without fouling the main. This may not be an issue for you, depending on how you plan your traffic. * I wonder if you could work in a curved turnout where the loopback track gets hidden on the left-hand side, then run two tracks over your liftout. This would make the other Toronto staging track double-ended. It would give you more options. If you're like me, you will find yourself continuously making tweaks and improvements as time goes on. Good luck!
Thanks for adding the context - forgot about the furnace & hot water heater. Just a couple of things:
* There is a grade crossing over the points of two turnouts on the right-hand side. This may look funny and not work well (especially considering the switching mechanisms). Ulrich's edit appears to take care of that.
* I don't see how the yard on the left hand side can be worked without fouling the main. This may not be an issue for you, depending on how you plan your traffic.
* I wonder if you could work in a curved turnout where the loopback track gets hidden on the left-hand side, then run two tracks over your liftout. This would make the other Toronto staging track double-ended. It would give you more options.
If you're like me, you will find yourself continuously making tweaks and improvements as time goes on. Good luck!
All good points odave. There will be a trade-off if I lose the switch at the level crossing, as I'm not sure the lap siding will work for me, so I would lose a passing track at the top right, although a switch at the crossing will not work well. I'll fool around a bit with that.
Yes - the yard should be able to be worked without fouling the main line. I will look at that too.
Doubling the drop in would work well and be pretty easy - good idea.
ETA: Got rid of the switch at the level crossing - added a second hidden loop track, enlarged the industry that hides the loop tracks (ignore the botched photoshop job of the switch and curve there - I will fix when I build it)
I think I'll have to live with the yard the way it is with the mainline. Any changes to isolate it more from the main line take length away from the yard that I really need. It will be a challenge operationally, but I am ok with it.
it was a pleasure!
Keep us posted on the progress - sharing is half of the fun!
A few other points - all the curves in the plan are at least 24" radius.
I am pretty tall and have a long reach. My desk here at work is an 'L' shape - 28" on one leg and 24" on the other, and I can reach into the corner with no problem so I don't anticipate a reach issue to the corners. If I have to lose the diagonal bench corners I will, although I think they look better.
Yes - the building in between the tracks is just a little shack.
I am pretty happy with the layout and think that other than minor changes, I will go with it as my plan.
To all of you - I am very appreciative of the help you have all given me, and as you say the layout has come a long way since my first plan - mostly due to your valuable input. I know your help has saved me countless mistakes that I would have learned the hard way. As I build, I hope I can still ask you questions that will help as the layout takes shape.
your layout is really turning out great. I've some questions, you have to take the decisions. I know fine tuning will have to be done in the future, but still I would like to know a bit more about the following points.
great job so far
Good luck and have fun,
Paul
I have picked up some of Stein´s ideas and incorporated them into your plan. Unfortunately, Photobucket is down for the moment, so i can´t post the plan here. I will send you the RTS file via e-mail.
Edit: Photobucket is back!
Aralai OK - this should be more clear. I angled the yards to separate from the main line and added roads, buildings etc.. I also made more space between tracks in the bottom right - between hidden staging and the main (visible) track.
OK - this should be more clear. I angled the yards to separate from the main line and added roads, buildings etc.. I also made more space between tracks in the bottom right - between hidden staging and the main (visible) track.
I assume you have checked lengths of sidings etc relative to planned train lengths and radius of curves ?
Not a biggie, though - there is room for pretty wide curves and pretty long sidings.
If necessary, you could always use the old "lap siding" trick (two sidings, one on each side of main, partly overlapping - allows you to put two short trains on sidings and a long train on main, or let two long trains pass each other, each using part of the main plus one of the sidings).
Like this:
Probably wouldn't look right for your location, though.
Looks like a lot of roads down along right side of layout, but that is a purely aestetic issue - whatever you like.
Mmm - reach might become a problem in upper right and upper left corner ?
Would it be possible to e.g move the structure in the upper left corner around to the upper side (across the tracks from the GO station), and maybe move the layout edge even closer to the walls in the upper left corner and along the right side ?
Something like this:
Well, I'd better head in for work.
Smile, Stein
Aralai The bench on the left runs to a wall, so if I am understanding you correctly - I could angle the yard to the right away a bit from the main line - is that what you mean?
Actually I was wondering if the whole bottom grid row, the width of your entire space, and 12" high, could be the yard. That would leave 24" of aisle space from the top edge of that yard to the bottom edge of your Toronto staging (which would need to be fully enclosed to remain hidden, I guess - but you can do something easy with hinges or curtains there). You could think of the shape of an @ sign with the top of the "a" cut off or a backwards 9. A picture would be better, but I am sans drawing tools at the moment. I'm not sure how this would work out with the curves, though.
Sir MadogI have noticed that switchbacks on layouts are one of those like/dislike items.
I agree, but sometimes it seems people aren't aware of the problems they can introduce, so when it's up and running they end up saying "wow, this really stinks" as opposed to "that's the challenge I intended".
odaveGotcha. I lost some context when the buildings, streets, and backdrops went away. I know it takes time to put them in, but they do help with evaluation and also ensure that you're leaving enough space for scenic elements. So I take it the bottom two tracks there are still hidden behind something? If so, you may want to look at the spacing between them and the scenic'd main. I'm not sure there's enough room for the backdrop or whatever it is that hides them to fit. Remember that you'll have roadbed, ballast, and the turnout mechanism to account for. Is the bottom 12" off limits? It might be nice to pull the yard around the corner and down there, so you'd have an inverted "G" shape. It seems like the single-track look of this area has been lost in the current plan, and that might help open things up.
Gotcha. I lost some context when the buildings, streets, and backdrops went away. I know it takes time to put them in, but they do help with evaluation and also ensure that you're leaving enough space for scenic elements.
So I take it the bottom two tracks there are still hidden behind something? If so, you may want to look at the spacing between them and the scenic'd main. I'm not sure there's enough room for the backdrop or whatever it is that hides them to fit. Remember that you'll have roadbed, ballast, and the turnout mechanism to account for.
Is the bottom 12" off limits? It might be nice to pull the yard around the corner and down there, so you'd have an inverted "G" shape. It seems like the single-track look of this area has been lost in the current plan, and that might help open things up.
Yes - the bottom two tracks are hidden behind backdrop for staging. I will probably need to pull the main track further away - you are right. The bench on the left runs to a wall, so if I am understanding you correctly - I could angle the yard to the right away a bit from the main line - is that what you mean?
I am putting roads and buildings on the plan as we speak...
odaveI noticed you have a switchback in the lower right corner, they can be more trouble than they're worth if you don't keep part of it clear for switching moves. Make sure you know what you're getting into when you include switchbacks - see Byron's article for the details.
I noticed you have a switchback in the lower right corner, they can be more trouble than they're worth if you don't keep part of it clear for switching moves. Make sure you know what you're getting into when you include switchbacks - see Byron's article for the details.
Thanks odave - It is technically not a switchback. The track continues to the left as the main line in the real world, although in my layout it stops. To the left of the switch is just a rail bridge over a road (Yonge Street), with no industry or stops. The siding is to an industry. I do need to ensure enough room for moving cars there, but the intent is for there only to be minimal movement there.
Dear Aralai'
yes, keep it straight and keep the spurs as well. But I was also thinking about double tracking between Mulock and the drop-in on the Wellington side, combining staging and the passing-siding; thought the Mulock crossing had to become singletrack, To switch the spurs around Mulock you may still need a short runaround, so the added crossover near Wellington. Queens remained single track territory in my initial thinking
But I still think you'll need a runaround near or in the the yard, i would have a sleepless night or two; so many passing-sidings. You do not really need an extra runaround between Mullock and Wellington. You could always switch the spurs on the way east or west, working the trailing spur only. Having a passing-siding at Queens (a runaround for the yard) and one in staging (partly?hidden), gives you all the operational flexibility you'll need.
You'r really learning fast sir, chapeau. There is a great plan emerging!!
BTW, if you look on the thread " is 24" plausible? " you will find a picture of a huge elevator complex in Wichita. To scale it down you can deminish the size of the cylinders, the number of them or truncate the building. The first two have to be done with care, a big building should remain big and still dwarf the environment. The last option is more easy to our brains; it seems to invent the remainder of the build itself.
Have fun , good luck
OK - updated the plan...
@ Paul - you are right about the staging tracks. The lower one stops at the edge of the bench and the middle one also stops there - except when the drop-in is in place. Both are hidden behind the backdrop.
I will probably be only running one train at a time most of the time, but it would be nice to have the passing track. Do you mean to keep the mainline straight across the top and get rid of the siding and switch to the left and just keep the one to the right starting from a switch to the right of the crossing?
Aralai I struggled with the passing siding at the middle top. I wanted to keep it, but I am also trying to keep true to prototype and that is where my main street has a level crossing and it is single track there. It would have been nice to have operationally, but then I would have to change too much from the real world.
I struggled with the passing siding at the middle top. I wanted to keep it, but I am also trying to keep true to prototype and that is where my main street has a level crossing and it is single track there. It would have been nice to have operationally, but then I would have to change too much from the real world.
Dear Aralai,
two short remarks.
You introduced two S-curves in Mulock, your coaches will not look right there; you can keep the upper track and let the lower track begin beyond the crossing.
I feel you really need a passing track, unless you run only one train at a time. The one you have now seems to be very short indeed. You can make the passing track longer, even as far as the drop-in, and you could add a crossover just before entering the hidden section. May be i am wrong here, but i my memory you wanted to use the lowest two tracks, just before the drop in, for staging.
Stein had on his thread a discussion with Cuyama, about conflicting prototype and modelling-needs.
Have fun, good luck
OK - I took Ulrich's modifications to my plan and tweaked it a bit.I flipped the siding at the bottom right to face the other way, as I need to model a street and bridge at the bottom toward the center.
I extended the track at top right and bottom left - thought it might be good to have them go off somewhere to give a better feeling of distance. I am much happier with the yards the way they are now - thanks!
I need to overlay my streets and buildings to make sure that there are no major issues. Let me know what you think of the track plan though...
AralaiThe wheel flanges seem so shallow compared to my old stuff,
Dear Aralai, it's not the size of the flanges that matters it's the form, so don't worry.
Aralaithe cars are pretty light.
there are NMRA standards for weight versus length; you can add weight if needed. I run only 40 and 50 foot long freightcars, I have no good idea about your coaches. For shorter cars it's 1 ounce for every 10 scale foot; with a 3.5 min. A 40 foot car should be 4 ounces; a new thread?
As far as i can see your coaches never have to negotiate S-curves, #6"s with a 24"radius will do a great job, the only problem is Mulock. The main is now (on Ulrich's plan) right in front of the factory. You'll have to lengthen the spur to serve both factory's.
have fun and good luck
I will be operating the GO Train in push/pull mode, and the coaches are the Ahearn Bombardier B-Level coaches - 85 feet. The wheel flanges seem so shallow compared to my old stuff, and the cars are pretty light. When looking at them my first impression was that if the track is not laid just right, I am going to have derailing problems, especially if they are being pushed through a switch, so I need to make sure it is done right.
Aralaiwould a #6 switch work ok? I am not that familiar with switch sizes
Hi Aralai,
to find out you have to experiment. Do you have allready bought switches? I once bought two(left) #4, two(right) #6 and made crossovers just to find out. Sometimes snaptrack comes handy. Especially when pushing ^#6's will make the difference. When S-curves and pushing are involved, as with crossovers, even a #8 should be considered; but this applies only to track where you run your coaches (or modern autoracks). In another thread "yardladder" ,still on page 1, the space a yardladder takes was discussed.
John Armstrong the dean of modelrailroading liked to speak about standards.
Freight only branches need a 18"mainline radius and #4 or #5(S-curves)switches.
Moderate mainlines, with short passanger coaches need a 24"radius and #5 and #6 switches.
Modern mainlines need 30"radius with #6 and #8 switches.
He always stressed that you had to develop your own set of standards, usualy later you found out he was right after all.
Good luck, have fun
No. 6 turnouts should be ok with almost any loco or rolling stock, unless you plan to operate a UP 9000 steamer or a similar monster.
The plan I have drawn is based on the Atlas No. 6 "Super-Switch", minimum radius on the main is 24", the upper right spur has a radius of 18" and the lower right one of 22.5". You should not have any problems running a 6-axle Diesel or normal steamer over this layout.
I you could squeeze out an extra foot to make the yard trackage longer certainly would enhance the operation. Just give me your feedback and I´d be happy to make the changes!
Thanks for the feedback. Yes - the switches are hand-drawn and I will need to fix them and adjust the layout. So for 85 feet coaches, would a #6 switch work ok? I am not that familiar with switch sizes.
Yes - the Bradford Yard needs to be longer - thanks for the feedback on that too. The extra turnout at Mulock is to serve the industry there, I actually added the part that made the track a passing siding - I believe originally there were only two sidings into the plants - I am still researching.
I may have to lose an element to give me more room - I really want some space between Newmarket and the Bradford Yard, and my train platform at Newmarket has to fit the train which is 43" long!
Some adjusting will need to be done. Maybe I can move everything clockwise - place the Aurora GO Station closer to the Yonge Street bridge and shift things to give me more space where I need it.
I tried to put your ideas into a track plan. Could that be a basis for your thoughts?
It is much easier to discuss on the basis of a workable track plan...
For my taste, there need to be some more spurs added - for better operation.
Edit:
...and here is the plan with some minor modifications:
Edit no. 2:
PM me your e-mail address if you want me to send you the RTS-file!