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,
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!
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
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.
My Build Thread: https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/185298.aspx
Follow me on Instagram: https://instagram.com/stephenkingsmaine
it was a pleasure!
Keep us posted on the progress - sharing is half of the fun!
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!
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!
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.
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...
Thanks Ulrich - that would work...
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.
or put the curved turnout on the drop-in?
Aralai odave 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.
odave 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!
I've been following this thread and I am very impressed with the plan, especially from where it started.
What does everyone think of the pass through industry at Holland Landing? Specifically, how do you swith the switch back industry at the top, or even use the curved run around there, without the loco or cars diving into the building? Aralai, is that building representative of something that is located specifically in your area? I think it would be pretty unusual.
- Douglas
Yes, I see a lot of progress.
Does the short spur under Queen Street serve a purpose?
Holland Landing industry view block? I'm not fond of the mainline entering a building unless the approach over the aisle is hidden too, and unless this is at a high enough level in relation to a person's eyes to block the image, I'm disturbed that a locomotive must enter an industry in order to gain access to the presumed enginehouse.
Sorry, while the yard lead doesn't foul the circle route, it does foul the mainline to Barre. Also, while the yard would be effective as an interchange point or to assemble/disassemble blocks of cars, it is poorly situated to assemble or breakdown complete trains, if that was your purpose. I haven't followed this thread closely. If mainline trains merely drop off or pick up cars rather than being assembled/disassembled here, you're OK. Still, to run around a cut of cars one must foul the circle route. Can you live with that?
The street layout looks like it is a radial design. More common in the US is the 90-degree grid. I'd eliminate/realign most of the streets, especially the southeast and northeast streets.
The industries served are tiny. I would rely more on flats against the layout edge suggesting larger industries, and you're missing an opportunity to develop a more complex industrial arrangement in the Welling St. area. May I suggest using the track going under Yonge Street as a switching lead to a multi-track arrangement serving a sizeable industry where Wellington Street is drawn?
Mark
Just a quick note, this has really been a great thread. I've been following and have learned some good stuff. Nice way to see the thought process for some of us who are still a learning.
Dear Aralai
Mark is right with the viewblock industry (near Holland Landing), for every run-around move in your yard the engine has to enter the building. You'll have a lot of run-around moves to perform, it's the only one you have operationally. When you split the building up in two parts and when you remove the switch of your staging yard to or on the drop-in, you'll have it all. And you don't have lift off the building in case of a derailment or maintenance.
The extra crossover to Tannery Mall seems odd to me, so does the very short spur under Queens. You could consider removing the Tannery Mall crossover and putting the Davis crossover a foot to the left. When you also lengthen the spur into the Waterstreet area, your spur can serve two big industry's with Queens in between.
Did you ever think about adding a second spur at Youngstreet? It could be used by the wayfreight working the plant at Wellington without disturbing the GO-train on the other track.
Keep thinking, your plan is almost perfect; starting the build is due soon?
Have fun and good luck
A few things. The layout is a compromise mostly because it is intended to emulate as much as possible the real thing. In real life, the main line from Toronto to Barrie is virtually north-south as it goes through Aurora and Newmarket. Because of this, when I build it on my layout - North - South gets curved around the room, hence the roads appearing in a radial pattern instead of at 90 degrees or parallell to each other. In real life, there is no crossovers at Davis Drive/Tannery, although in the past there were sidings. The main reason I put them is to have a passing track.
When you are talking about the industry at Holland Landing - bear in mind a few things - firstly, the line entering the building is not intended to be a main line. The actual main runs from Barrie, around the outside perimeter until it crosses Mulock, then it is the track that crosses the Yonge Street Bridge, although trains heading into the hidden staging represent trains heading to Toronto. The drop-in loop is ti allow continuous operation, not to complete a main line. The building could be a maintenance shop or I was thinking an industry that had inside unloading of trains.
Some of the ideas are great, but change the real life design a lot - ex: multi-track at Wellington. That is the biggest challenge with this layout is to strike a balance between making it as real as the prototype and yet have the features that work well.
Aralai When you are talking about the industry at Holland Landing - bear in mind a few things - firstly, the line entering the building is not intended to be a main line. The actual main runs from Barrie, around the outside perimeter until it crosses Mulock, then it is the track that crosses the Yonge Street Bridge, although trains heading into the hidden staging represent trains heading to Toronto. The drop-in loop is ti allow continuous operation, not to complete a main line. The building could be a maintenance shop or I was thinking an industry that had inside unloading of trains.
Aralai:
The issue that I see with that building is that in order to use the curved runaround or switch the industry at the top of Holland Landing is that a loco or train would have to enter that building first, which is very unusual.
Scenicly, I think you could accomplish the same thing by simply having a building that was close to the tracks, rather than having the tracks pass inside the building. It would still tend to conceal the tracks by giving your eye the break in the scene it needs without having to absolutely conceal the tracks.
Doug
DoughlessThe issue that I see with that building is that in order to use the curved runaround or switch the industry at the top of Holland Landing is that a loco or train would have to enter that building first, which is very unusual. Scenicly, I think you could accomplish the same thing by simply having a building that was close to the tracks, rather than having the tracks pass inside the building. It would still tend to conceal the tracks by giving your eye the break in the scene it needs without having to absolutely conceal the tracks. Doug
That makes sense. I can make the tracks run along behind the building.
I am hoping to start building this month... :)
I am wondering if it would be possible to have the yard connect to the loop track instead of the main? That way, the yard switching would not foul the main. Do you think there is room to run a switch in between the two switch from the main to the loop track and the second switch inside the building?
Aralai
I like to use names, so the industry hiding the lap-track switch is called Hol Lap Ind.(HLI).
Very good thinking indeed, yard work blocks the main to Barre, while the connection into staging is usualy not used that much. May be so in the great outdoors, but also on your layout? A solution:
I made a little sketch, it emphasizes the main to Barre so much more, and sneaking through HLI is downtoning the lapconnection nicely. In my vision the line between Queens and Barre has three crossovers, one between Queens and NewMarket, one between Holland Landing and HLI (with the double slip switch) and one on the southern end of the yard towards Barre.
At your service
Good luck, have fun
Yes Paul I think that would work. To clarify - a double slip switch is a two sided point? That is it has points on both sides but takes up less space than two points (switches) put end to end?
Sorry I am so used to using the UK term points instead of switch - old habit...
Not sure I will be able to actually place the right pieces in the RTS program, but I get the idea..
AralaiTo clarify - a double slip switch is a two sided point? That is it has points on both sides but takes up less space than two points (switches) put end to end?
Four different ways of having two tracks cross each other:
In a crossing, you have only one setting - you can only go straight across.
In a single slip, you have two settings - go straight across, or diverge (but diverge only on one side, depending on how you installed the slip - either between the two top tracks or between the two bottom tracks).
In a double slip, you can go straight across, or diverge (on either side).
With two turnouts end to end, you have this:
So yeah - a double slip is functionally as two turnouts back to back, but takes up far less space.
In a yard ladder, you might want the flexibility of being able to run trains on either of the four routes allowed by the double slip:
If you don't need one of the two first routes, a single slip would have done the job.
I did a bit of thinking and one thing is still concerning me. I should have posted a drawing, makes it easyer to understand, alas. In my vision, we have the main from Barre, through holland Landing and Newmarket under Queens into Wellington on the outsidetrack along the wall. The yard and the yardlead are on the inside track up front, till its connection with the main just before Queens.
The layout will be looking very much now as a point to point system, with an almost hidden lap connection. As i remember well this precisely what you were after. But if you use the laprunning option a lot, to create some running time between stops, you'll have a problem when two operators are around. Suppose one is switching the yard, the other running the GO, the last will have to cross the switch lead again and again. The double slipswitch makes the crossing itself beautifull; it takes the dubble S-curve away, but it will dearly annoy the switchjob. Mark noticed this early'r on as well.
Reversing the yard (to the outside) and the main (to the front) could be an answer. Just something to tinker about.
Have fun, good luck, a little bit of thinking
It should not be a problem with multiple operators. When I run the loop, nothing else will be going on. I may need to move the yard to the outside though, as I discovered yesterday when cleaning out the room that I am almost a foot short in length for the direction the yard goes, so I need to re-do the layout to make sure everything fits.
I made a modified layout that switches the yard to the back of the main line, and takes the drop-in out completely. It keeps the yard from fouling the main and uses the spur in the left top as a switching lead. It takes into account the smaller size I have to work with - approx 1 foot shorter from the top to the furnace.
In general I think the yard works better on that side of the main. But as sketched, the crossover at the bottom isn't really useable, since there's not enough tail to get a locomotive or car to clear the points. Likewise for the bottom turnout just to its right.
I'd hate for you to lose that continuous running option, because it seemed like a fairly important druther of yours. Why did you take it out? I think the suggestions for hiding the connector were workable...
You may want to do some thinking about the need for a full length passing track. Yes, you do need one if you want to model meets or have one train work an area while another passes by. But it seems like trying to get that siding to fit in your space is making other parts more difficult or look non-prototypical. If modelling a meet "on stage" is very important to you, then I'd say keep trying to fit it in.
But if it's not, then maybe you should let yourself off the hook and just make a short runaround somewhere to help out your freight switching. This may clear up some space for spurs and scenery. Meets can be done offstage in your staging track or in the yard. It does mean that you need to run your GO & CN freight trains one at a time, so that's the tradeoff. Your call on which trade is the better one.
I'm not sure if the continuous loop is a 'must-have' for me. I am leaning towards it not being necessary, although I could make it work. I will normally be running one train at a time - either the GO Train or freight, although I'd like to be able to have the freight park on a passing track and have the GO train pass. Most times if I am running the GO train, I might be doing some switching in the Yard with the freight, so it will probably be important to isolate the yard from the main as in the new diagram. It would be nice to have a yard crossover to get the locomotive behind freight cars, but you are right about needing room for the locomotive.
Aralai I made a modified layout that switches the yard to the back of the main line, and takes the drop-in out completely. It keeps the yard from fouling the main and uses the spur in the left top as a switching lead. It takes into account the smaller size I have to work with - approx 1 foot shorter from the top to the furnace.
I agree w/dave, the yard works much better against the wall. Personally, I would rework the main and the trackage to the right of it. Seems overly complicated. Its also not a good idea to combine a yard lead and an industry spur on a short track, having to constantly move a spotted car out of the way in order to switch the yard.
I have an idea I wish you would consider, but my computer illiteracy only allows me to describe the changes, not draw them, which may seem confusing:
I would eliminate the current crossover in the yard and flip the switch on the longest track to diverge towards the main, then bring the main closer to the yard and connect them. This would give you a longer siding with which to store a train and enough length at the bottom to have a loco consist (short one) runaround if needed. In the upper left, I would use what is now the main (the broader curved track) as the yard lead, truncating it somewhere along the top wall, (disconnecting it from the main and eliminating the switch there). This would give you a yard lead that would be about as long as your new runaround and your longest storage track, all of which operate best when they do not vary in length a lot. I would install a new switch at the top of the new runaround siding (about the second or third "dot" from the top) which will connect the main to the inner curved track, creating the new main. I would eliminate all other track to the right of the main, except a new spur which diverges towards the former drop in section, with the building it serves being in front of the track, helping to conceal the connection with the drop in should you want it restored (may as well now).
If I'm seeing things correctly, these changes allows your train length to be longer than it is now, fully parked on the siding, pulled almost entirely into the yard lead and broken down without fouling the main. The industry in the upper left will remain, and the new spur (drop in connector when in continuous run mode) would give the switcher a reason to use the runaround since the two industries are switched from opposite directions, one trailing and one facing.
Also, in general, I think the layout would benefit from some tighter radius curves and stock curved turnout switches.
Just having fun trying to help.
Thanks Doug - Awesome feedback - I understand what you describe. With my 80 foot GO cars, what is the tightest radius recommended? I was trying to keep the radius as large as possible in the space I have. How do I get the curved turnouts in the RTS program?
Here is the updated layout incorporating your suggestion...