Denny,
Consider how much you plan to have switching activity in the yard. If your'e going to have a lot, you should consider flipping the yard so it is located near the operating pit rather than having it on the outside of you loop and accessed by the equipment storage area. You don't want to be ducking in and out of the operating pit to switch cars on the left side of the layout, then also needing to switch cars in the yard.
For that reason, early on this thread, some of us suggested that the area of your plan that has limited access,would be best devoted for staging rather than for operations that needed more than limited access. Having the staging yard be visible, instead of behind a backdrop, could be an asset in that you could scenic the area in an appealing way. Operationally, it would only be used to set the stage by assembling the trains you are going to run, then ducking into the pit only once to then operate your trains.
It seems that the thoughts are starting to draw towards using the yard in a more operationally significant way, which would require you to duck in and out of the pit frequently. If that is the case, I would rethink the location of the yard.
Reserve the space that has limited access for a spot on the layout that has limited switching.
- Douglas
stein
Don't Ever Give Up
superbe There has been a lot of discussion about a complete two track double main. Also Denny likes to railfan (as do I) so would it be possible to fit in reverse loops with crossovers on the mains??
There has been a lot of discussion about a complete two track double main. Also Denny likes to railfan (as do I) so would it be possible to fit in reverse loops with crossovers on the mains??
Loops is one of those words that often seems to mean different things to different people.
Bob - what do you when you write "reverse loops with crossovers on the mains"?
Smile, Stein, curious
Hi Stein and Denny,
of course you'r right; I would keep the doubletrack main along the back. It can be used also to hold two trains if needed. If the view on these tracks is a bit obscured these trains can be considered somwhere in the rest of the world. Or let them run orbits around and around the layout and just enjoy looking at them.(or at just one)
I have read Denny"s requirements, IMHO its quite possible he will like running in the opposite direction too in the near future. My advise is just to have a good look at it.
Paul
Hi All,
I too have enjoyed following this thread and also can't resist asking a question.
This would provide a lot of activity for the operator as well as seeing the trains from different views and looks.
Happy Railroading
Bob
Paulus Jas In real life trains don't go only eastwards, so having a staging or holding yard with at least two tracks is mandatory.
In real life trains don't go only eastwards, so having a staging or holding yard with at least two tracks is mandatory.
Hi Paul --
Nice to see you posting again!
To nitpick a little : it is not *mandatory* (meaning that you *have* to do it) to have staging for two way traffic.
It is perfectly possible on a model railroad where trains only run one way around a loop. It may not be very good for modeling traffic flow in both directions on a mainline, but it certainly is doable.
In fact, I was considering suggesting to Denny only running his long train clockwise, and having a single ended yard branching off as trailing tracks for a train that is going clockwise - either located where the town is now, or located along the right edge of the right end of the layout.
For that matter - with two mains for 3/4 of the loop, he can always hold a second train on the second main, wiithout having *dedicated* staging tracks.
Denny has a set of requirements - it may not be what you would have liked to do with the space. Or what I would have liked to do with the space (visions of wall to wall urban scenery with lots of switching comes to mind :-)
Or what Cuda Ken would have liked to do with the space (running several trains on different loops at the same time?). Or what a fourth and fifth and sixth person would have liked to do with the space.
Quite possibly all of us would have wanted to do something else, but not necessarily the *same* else :-)
Grin, Stein
Hi Denny and Stein,
i have to comment on point 3)
What you want is bringing a "mainline-train" into the yard, set out one or more blocks of cars and picking up a block of cars before leaving the yard again.
In real life trains don't go only eastwards, so having a staging or holding yard with at least two tracks is mandatory. From a modellers point of view its best to have these tracks at the back of the layout, because no switching is involved. Between a view block and out in the open is "obscured". It might be great to have different views, sometimes up front...a moment later behind houses or a row of trees.
The yard and local industries where all (un)coupling is done could be up front, you'll never have to reach over scenery to uncouple a car at the back.
BTW your train-length will be about 15 feet (15 cars and 2 engines); to accommodate these train-length will be quite a problem.
IMHO planning should be flexible, better think about running 2 mainline freight trains at the very same time now. If you will ever do it is not the issue, researching how much it will affect your plan can be sensible. If the only prize is a bit shorter single track main, i would consider it.
Probably the most interesting spurs are a teamtrack and an interchange. I don't have to explain this one, you'll have all the information needed. (or just ask)
80ktsClamp All good points... let's see if I can communicate a bit better, haha. For the longest trains, I plan on using the DD40 or a combo of a couple of engines running about a 10-20 car intermodal train. I don't know about the 89 foot cars... I always really liked the look of the spine cars which are shorter. Intermix that in with coal cars, box cars, and tanker cars. Then having it in a somewhat constant loop around the outside while I "work" a smaller switching loco between the town, quarry, and mine. I also envision probably "building" the longer train by pulling cars and such from the various areas and mating them up to the heavy engine(s). Also, vice versa- the heavy train arriving by the yard and splitting with the switcher coming out and delivering cars to the various locations. I don't see or envision alternating different long trains coming around the outside. I'm sure there will be some days that I just want to watch a big train rumble around the whole thing, however I tend to follow the train around and change perspective when watching them. I love seeing it "travel" through the different areas from different perspectives... or standing back accross the room and watching it loop around the entire combined thing (one of the many reasons I don't want view blocks) So, to summarize- 2 trains at most moving with those two different missions. Any better? Thanks again- Denny
All good points... let's see if I can communicate a bit better, haha.
For the longest trains, I plan on using the DD40 or a combo of a couple of engines running about a 10-20 car intermodal train. I don't know about the 89 foot cars... I always really liked the look of the spine cars which are shorter. Intermix that in with coal cars, box cars, and tanker cars.
Then having it in a somewhat constant loop around the outside while I "work" a smaller switching loco between the town, quarry, and mine. I also envision probably "building" the longer train by pulling cars and such from the various areas and mating them up to the heavy engine(s). Also, vice versa- the heavy train arriving by the yard and splitting with the switcher coming out and delivering cars to the various locations.
I don't see or envision alternating different long trains coming around the outside.
I'm sure there will be some days that I just want to watch a big train rumble around the whole thing, however I tend to follow the train around and change perspective when watching them. I love seeing it "travel" through the different areas from different perspectives... or standing back accross the room and watching it loop around the entire combined thing (one of the many reasons I don't want view blocks)
So, to summarize- 2 trains at most moving with those two different missions.
Any better?
Thanks again- Denny
Much better. A couple of quick observations in passing:
1) You don't need double track mains all around.
2) You have no need whatsoever for double ended yard tracks - you are not going to have two switchers working the yard from opposite ends at the same time. Just make your yard single ended, with longer tracks.
3) I still would recommend making the main run on the inside of the yard along the right side of the layout, so your big train can run past the yard on the main without interfering with or being interfered with by hands trying to do coupling or uncoupling in the yard having to reach over the main to reach the yard.
Oops - gotta run for my train. More later.
Smile, Stein
Oh... for train length I don't see anything longer than around 10-12 feet at the highest.
Hold my beer... ya'll watch this!
80ktsClamp steinjr: Which is why I recommended to Denny that perhaps he should try to describe how he thinks he wants his trains to run, rather than concentrating on what curve radius and turnouts he needs to create a a double ended yard with pretty short body tracks along the right side of his layout. Smile, Stein You nailed it on what I envision with the operation of the main loop. Having the double line shrink into a single line through the mountains. Just more interesting. As far as the operation, what more are you looking for in me describing? I thought I hit it pretty well on my previous post. One thing that I am not doing is modeling a very specific operation... frankly it doesn't interest me and I don't want to limit it like that. Future expansion may be an option, but that will be a long ways down the road. The most logical extension is off of the bottom right with the light shaded "optional" trackage.
steinjr: Which is why I recommended to Denny that perhaps he should try to describe how he thinks he wants his trains to run, rather than concentrating on what curve radius and turnouts he needs to create a a double ended yard with pretty short body tracks along the right side of his layout. Smile, Stein
Which is why I recommended to Denny that perhaps he should try to describe how he thinks he wants his trains to run, rather than concentrating on what curve radius and turnouts he needs to create a a double ended yard with pretty short body tracks along the right side of his layout.
You nailed it on what I envision with the operation of the main loop. Having the double line shrink into a single line through the mountains. Just more interesting.
As far as the operation, what more are you looking for in me describing? I thought I hit it pretty well on my previous post.
One thing that I am not doing is modeling a very specific operation... frankly it doesn't interest me and I don't want to limit it like that.
Future expansion may be an option, but that will be a long ways down the road. The most logical extension is off of the bottom right with the light shaded "optional" trackage.
This is what I asked initially:
steinjr Where will your trains come from and go to? What kinds of trains will you run? What kinds of cars in those trains? How long will these trains be? How many trains will you be running during a session? How many trains do you plan to keep on the layout, available to go?
Where will your trains come from and go to?
What kinds of trains will you run?
What kinds of cars in those trains?
How long will these trains be?
How many trains will you be running during a session?
How many trains do you plan to keep on the layout, available to go?
Note that none of these questions say anything about simulating real trains - they are pretty general questions aimed at trying to establish the desired number and lengths of trains and where they will be moving from and two
Your answer essentially said : "I dream of running longish trains (with a good amount of cars), I also want to have somewhere to store some extra cars and swapping engines on my trains, and I would also sometimes like to some industry switching".
We all dream of running long trains and having a nice yard and some nice industries.
But here we are trying to go from dream to plan to build, and we need to start getting more specific about our design goals.
Take a specific example - what do you mean by "a good amount of cars"?
Does this mean that you are envisioning running a train consisting of two 8" long engines and twenty 89-foot intermodal cars for a total length of about 2 x 8" + 20 x 12.25" = about 21 feet of train?
Or that you are thinking of running a train of one engine and e.g ten 50-foot older boxcars, for a total train length of about 8 + 10 x 7" = about 6.5 feet of train?
Or something else? There is a pretty big difference in design specs between being able to hold a 21 foot train vs being able to hold a 6.5 foot train, if you want to be able to hold such a train somewhere while another train runs through the single track section.
Do you envision that one longish train looping and looping, only occasionally stopping it while you run another train?
Is your dream to be able to sit down on a comfy chair inside the cockpit, with a cold beverage in your hand, facing e.g. towards the mountain scene along where the concrete wall used to be, and just watching that one longish train loop continuously past you - rolling slowly into your field of vision from one side, passing through the mountains scene and going out of your field of vision heading off to the other side?
And then the same train appearing over and over again?
Or should there be a *different* train following the first one?
Should we alternate between several other trains running sequentially through your field of vision before the first train come back through the scene(s) again?
If you want to alternate between several trains - what kind of train lengths and what number of trains are we talking about? How do you envision bringing those extra trains into play - taking the engine and cars off the tracks by hand, putting new engines and cars on the tracks by hand? Or having somewhere on the layout where you can hold an extra train or two while the other trains are running?
See my point? I am trying to make you close your eyes and describe how you envision running your layout will be.
Smile,Stein
steinjr cudaken: I said this I believe one other time, but I would add a second main. If your main objective is to rail fan, one train gets boring. You could easily add a second main on the left side (from picture point of view) of the bench. Yes, you would have two mains running through the yard, but so what. When you want to do some yard work just stop one of the trains. Ken - he already has double track main lines over about 80% of his mainline length (except for a single track section on the left). Single track part or double track all the way depends on what *kind* of railfanning you want. You can e.g. sit and watch two trains loop around and around and around without any interaction from yourself. You can e.g. control one train, holding that before the single track section until the other train is past, and then cross the single track section - giving you something to *do* (except just sitting and watching the trains run). Or you can automate the trains, so whichever train first gets to the single track part goes, and the other trains get a halt (e.g. because power is removed from the last part of the track at the other track). Lots of ways to have trains running as the main entertainment. To me, it sounds rather boring to just have two trains circle endlessly on two parallel tracks. But to others, that is just what they want. Which is why I recommended to Denny that perhaps he should try to describe how he thinks he wants his trains to run, rather than concentrating on what curve radius and turnouts he needs to create a a double ended yard with pretty short body tracks along the right side of his layout. Smile, Stein
cudaken: I said this I believe one other time, but I would add a second main. If your main objective is to rail fan, one train gets boring. You could easily add a second main on the left side (from picture point of view) of the bench. Yes, you would have two mains running through the yard, but so what. When you want to do some yard work just stop one of the trains.
I said this I believe one other time, but I would add a second main. If your main objective is to rail fan, one train gets boring. You could easily add a second main on the left side (from picture point of view) of the bench. Yes, you would have two mains running through the yard, but so what. When you want to do some yard work just stop one of the trains.
Ken - he already has double track main lines over about 80% of his mainline length (except for a single track section on the left).
Single track part or double track all the way depends on what *kind* of railfanning you want.
You can e.g. sit and watch two trains loop around and around and around without any interaction from yourself.
You can e.g. control one train, holding that before the single track section until the other train is past, and then cross the single track section - giving you something to *do* (except just sitting and watching the trains run).
Or you can automate the trains, so whichever train first gets to the single track part goes, and the other trains get a halt (e.g. because power is removed from the last part of the track at the other track).
Lots of ways to have trains running as the main entertainment. To me, it sounds rather boring to just have two trains circle endlessly on two parallel tracks. But to others, that is just what they want.
One thing that I am not doing is modelling a very specific operation... frankly it doesn't interest me and I don't want to limit it like that.
80ktsClamp When I entered into this project, "go big and do it right" is what has been going through my head the entire time. This is also why I am spending so much time doing detailed planning and research. You should see the stack of books on my desk! It helps to be quite OCD, haha.
When I entered into this project, "go big and do it right" is what has been going through my head the entire time. This is also why I am spending so much time doing detailed planning and research. You should see the stack of books on my desk! It helps to be quite OCD, haha.
I've been away from this thread for a while, but I'll try to summarize some of my reactions to the 2+ pages of posts which have appeared in this thread since I read it.
First of all, Denny, banish your illusions. You have not yet spent any significant amount of time doing "detailed planning and research". You're still jumping from idea to idea -- and this is a great thing. Obviously, we have you juices going. What you need to do now is start nailing things down: exactly what do you want to model, where is your layout (Salt Lake basin?, Southwest?,) what are your trains doing there (if going in circles is your bag, that's fine), etc.
Make a list of your Givens (things you must do or have have on your layout) and Druthers (things you want if you have the funds / space / ability). Decide on your design elements (location, road name, setting, industries, etc.). If you can't do this, you're not ready for detailed design yet. Again, that's fine. Play with the concept as long as you like. Go back and forth from a "sample" layout to your Givens & Druthers and layout elements until you find the best options for you.
I'd also forget about wiring and benchwork for the time being. Design your layout, then figure out how to best wire it. Finally, build (or buy pre-fab) benchwork that will hold it. Benchwork should evolve out of your layout design, not vice-versa.
Finally, DON'T go big, because unless you are Leonardo Da Vinci reborn, you WON'T do it right. At least not the first time. Probably not the second or third, either. Don't be afraid to rip something out and try again if it doesn't work for you. Start small. Build one corner or side, or even a "temporary" layout, just to practice the techniques you will need to build "the big one".
It may sound like I'm trying to squelch you. I'm not. It's great to see an enthusiastic newcomer. It would be a shame for you to get in over your head with a layout that doesn't really meet your needs, get frustrated, and quit.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
Stein, that is why I said he could easily add the second line.
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
cudaken I said this I believe one other time, but I would add a second main. If your main objective is to rail fan, one train gets boring. You could easily add a second main on the left side (from picture point of view) of the bench. Yes, you would have two mains running through the yard, but so what. When you want to do some yard work just stop one of the trains.
My only suggestion would be to change your yard tracks. It looks like you have short double-ended tracks. Change them to stub-ended to get more length out of the yard tracks and keep the arrival/departure tracks.
Oh and keep those hands on the wheel up front there, I might be one of your passengers!
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
Denny, nice to meet you so to speak.
Adding staging into your yard equipment storage area will be help as you model more. I have been in the hobby for only 5 years. I started out with three engines and 15 cars. I now have around 25 engines that I run (another 20 I don't and I have gave away 10 or so) and 300 rolling stock. I have around 150 cars stored under the bench, on shelf's and all over. If you are like most of us, you will do the same thing.
I would add access to staging (turnouts) at the top of the bench so later you can add staging. I can all most guarantee you three years from now you will be glad you did.
Ken
steinjr 80ktsClamp: Now that I've refined the benchwork and the layout... the next major step in planning is going to be how to wire this monstrosity. Hmm - I am still uneasy about the design - I feel like you perhaps still have quite a bit of design work left before you can skip ahead to wiring and benchwork building. How do you envision running your layout? Where will your trains come from and go to? What kinds of trains will you run? What kinds of cars in those trains? How long will these trains be? How many trains will you be running during a session? How many trains do you plan to keep on the layout, available to go? Form follows function. If you think about (and describe) how you want to run, then perhaps the rest of us can suggest some ways of getting the traffic you want to run. Don't get frozen in analysis paralysis. But maybe spend a few more minutes on considering how you want to *run* your trains before freezing the design and hurrying on to benchwork building and wiring. Smile, Stein
80ktsClamp: Now that I've refined the benchwork and the layout... the next major step in planning is going to be how to wire this monstrosity.
Now that I've refined the benchwork and the layout... the next major step in planning is going to be how to wire this monstrosity.
Hmm - I am still uneasy about the design - I feel like you perhaps still have quite a bit of design work left before you can skip ahead to wiring and benchwork building.
How do you envision running your layout?
Form follows function. If you think about (and describe) how you want to run, then perhaps the rest of us can suggest some ways of getting the traffic you want to run.
Don't get frozen in analysis paralysis. But maybe spend a few more minutes on considering how you want to *run* your trains before freezing the design and hurrying on to benchwork building and wiring.
Stein...again.. many thanks!
I took the suggestions to heart, and I am honestly a good ways away from before I start buying any sort of structure, track, or wiring. I've got a lot of learning to go before I am ready to move to the next step!
As far as what I want... the layout is primarily railfanning with a "heavy" with a good amount of cars (intermodal, coal... stuff like that) going around the outside with some mild (in my opinion.. apparently it's medium!) switching to and from the town, yard, mine, and quarry.
On my most recent trip I had a very nice 24 hour layover in San Francisco and spent much of the afternoon with grid, protractor, compass, and pencil in hand. I also boosted my level of tolerance to very strict with track turnouts (#6 for all except yard and a couple other switches that are #5). In my previous sketches, I was using what I thought were 6 turnouts but actually were #4. Additionally minimum outer radius for the "heavy iron" (what we call the big machines in the airline industry) is at least 26" and could work to 26.5. Min radius on the inner curve into the yard is 21.
The yard is a compromise. I want the long outer run to be mainline for sure... the "yard" is there for some mild enjoyment in sending engines to the service house, storing and connecting cars and sending them out to a heavy train....and honestly it just looks cool. As part of the compromise I put an extention off of the shortest section of the yard and modded it to double as a car servicing or something like that.
That's the fun of all this... it is a daydreaming world I'm creating! It's representative of real life scenery without the stress of operational strictness.
You'll noticed a light shaded extension in the bottom right which is just "there" to see what it could look like.
The rail itself looks a bit "scribbled" as I went over the fine pencil drawings and darkened them .
So, for your review, here is a to scale layout:
cudaken I as well have been enjoying this thread a lot. By the way, what is your real mane? You are very lucky that Stein and others are helping you as much as they are. One of the reason I asked how tall you want your layout is what you just brought up. Running a yard off into the yard equipment section of the basement. Far as your motto "Hold my beer... ya'll watch this!" I love to see the looks of your passenger faces if you say that over the intercom! Cuda Ken
I as well have been enjoying this thread a lot. By the way, what is your real mane? You are very lucky that Stein and others are helping you as much as they are.
One of the reason I asked how tall you want your layout is what you just brought up. Running a yard off into the yard equipment section of the basement.
Far as your motto "Hold my beer... ya'll watch this!" I love to see the looks of your passenger faces if you say that over the intercom!
Hey Cuda (and all actually!),
Been on a trip the past three days and couldn't post. I carry an ipad with me on trips and I can read the replies but can't post due to the coding on the "post message" part of the forums. Anyyyhoooo.
My name is Denny... and my signature is what I say pretty much every time I click off the autopilot on approach, haha.
The help on the forums has been pricless and has helped me wrap my head in more and more realistic terms. It is definitely a growing process. As for the height of the layout... the track will probably be around 40 inches at base elevation...sitting on 2 or 3 inches of foam, then the plywood and the underlying structure. I haven't settled on that yet.
The idea of running a yard off into the yard other section of the basement has come accross my thoughts a few times... but I've got to say I really need to nip the size of this thing in the bud at about this.
See next post for further!
80ktsClamp Now that I've refined the benchwork and the layout... the next major step in planning is going to be how to wire this monstrosity.
hi
if you really think you have refined your plan, your very optimistic.
IMHO your switches are not drawn to scale, and your not specific about the kind of cars your gonna use.
it makes a hell of a difference whether your using 40 feeters from the 50's or modern 90 feet long cars.
In stead of using a 18" radius with #4 switches, you should use a 30" radius with #6 and #8 switches.
I am not sure about the location of the yard. Most of the switching will be done there, so it might
be better to have the yard up front.. (unless the yard is used for staging only)
John Armstrong invented designing by the squares, a great way to avoid overly optimistic planning without using cad.
Looking further at the yard layout, I will probably extend a spur off of the shortest section on the yard to increase its length at least a foot and a half or 2 feet off of the "upper side." Probably not the most realistic, but certainly functional and interesting to look at. Increase capacity efficiently...
Hey guys... update. After Steins reality check last night on turnout optimism, I did some measurements and derived what was required to model the yard the way it actually will go.
I broke off the initial feed into the yard on the bottom side earlier and had it parrallel the track, the same is for the exit. While requiring a slightly tighter radius for yard entry and exit, it made it work and allowed the yard to fan out and close in actual dimensions (something I had no clue what it actually took until stein most graciously showed me last night). Here is the refined layout:
I'll explore the possibility of running the mainline inside and the yard on the outside further in the next couple of days... but I've got to say this is what I really envisioned.
Now that I've refined the benchwork and the layout... the next major step in planning is going to be how to wire this monstrocity.
Thanks again for all the input!
80ktsClamp Looks like I'm going modify to the main inbetween the shortline and the yard on the outside...works just as fine. I do have zero plans to use dividers- just not a big fan of that. The "yard" that i intend on using will serve functually as well as for staging.
Looks like I'm going modify to the main inbetween the shortline and the yard on the outside...works just as fine. I do have zero plans to use dividers- just not a big fan of that. The "yard" that i intend on using will serve functually as well as for staging.
Your layout, your decisions.
But in my opinion a viewblock across the rightmost table would give you a fair shot at at two fairly descent looking scenes, plus create the illusion (when viewed from either side), that trains are coming from somewhere else and is departing for somewhere else.
No viewblock means that the background when looking out of the pit will be a room filled with various tools and gardening implements, and when looking into across the yard a table with tracks, then a pit and more tables in the background.
Of course - no viewblock also makes it easier to see where engines are in the yard from inside the pit.
So like everything else, it is a trade-off. But I would advise against being too quick to write off viewblocks seemingly without first considering both advantages and disadvantages of both approaches (viewblock or no viewblock).
80ktsClamp I know it may seem a bit hardheaded, but I really don't want to limit myself to a very specific scene.
I know it may seem a bit hardheaded, but I really don't want to limit myself to a very specific scene.
Not suggesting that you do that. By all means pick 3 (or 4, if you use a viewblock across the table) different scenes with room for transition scenes in between between.
But I am suggesting that you perhaps should try to stick with a common underlying theme. It may sound cool to e.g. do a "little of everything" sampler, but in my opinion a collection of *very* dissimilar scenes seldom work as a whole.
Unless perhaps if they are visually completely separated, so you cannot see both scenes at the same time.
Anyways - I am just throwing out some ideas for you. Doesn't means that you have to follow my suggestions.
Well, time to start a pizza dough for dinner tonight, and then go get some more tracks wired up.
80...
You're throwing a few more variables into this thread than some of us were expecting. What was once thought to be a railfanning type of layout is becoming more of an operating layout with some/much switching.
I agree with Ulrich in this respect, this layout will command a good amount of money and time. It would be easier for members to offer more helpful suggestions if you formed a more focused vision of what you want in a layout and whether or not it needs to be modular. Or else you might find yourself spending a lot of time and money building something that really doesn't suit your givens and druthers.
Now that you've gotten some general ideas about shape and available space, perhaps its time to focus a bit narrower on what you want.
Perhaps you have that focus, have settled on a theme, and have prioritized your givens and druthers. I haven't been able to really detect that based upon your comments so far.
ah ha! I figured it out. On the original scale drawing of my layout, have the track after the initial yard lead parrallel the main track through the yard. Same with the exit.
How does that work?
steinjr Probably a 0-4-0 steam engine. For some reason, Americans count wheels, while e.g. the French or Germans count axles. That is a pretty tiny steam engine, from an age way, way back, compared to e.g. a DD40X. Up to you what engines you run, of course - but if you want to invest a significant amount of time, money and effort in building a layout, you might want to consider picking a rough era and location for your layout, and running engines and rolling stock that would look somewhat normal for that era. It is much easier to get a layout to look somewhat plausible if there isn't too many disconnects between the elements of the layout. Engines are (relatively speaking) a pretty small part of the expense of building a layout. Anyways - I don't know if you ever got around to following those links I used to have in my signature (lost in the forum reshuffle) ? Here is a link to a pretty good page on layout design principles from the Layout Design Special Interest Group. Think a bit more about what your goal is. Because you first told us you wanted to model trains running through a contemporary mountainous/arid landscape in the SW. Not sure it is a good idea to design a contemporary SW layout built around switching a yard with a tiny 0-4-0 steam engine :-) Would 18" curves instead of 26" give you much for the yard as you first drew it? It would give you maybe 15-16" longer tracks. So instead of just being able to fit 3 short cars on the longest track, you would be able to fit 6 shortish cars on the longest track (a 40 foot car in H0 scale takes about 4.5" of length). More modern 60 foot cars takes 1.5 times the length of a 40-foot car - so your longest track would be able to fit 2 cars (as originally drawn by me - with 26" radius curves) or 4 cars (with 18" radius curves). IMO, not enough of a difference to be worth the hassle of using sharp curves. Just put the yard between the main and the aisle - that automatically gives you significantly longer tracks - larger circumference on the outside, eh? Also, you won't have to lean across the main while doing things in the yard. Making the yard a mix of double ended and single ended tracks also helps with length and flexibility of the yard - because you are going to have to use it as staging (*) as well - the longer you can make those tracks, the longer trains you can run. (*) staging - like the wings in a theater - a place to keep whole trains waiting to come onto the main stage, and a place for trains to depart to when they leave the main stage. Allows you to have one train leaving the layout, and then another train arriving - makes your layout look like a small section of a bigger world, instead of a small self contained layout on an island. You asked what I used to draw this stuff - XrkCad. It's a freeware program for drawing track plans. Hard to learn, but pretty flexible once you have mastered it. I wouldn't recommend that you spend a lot of time on learning a track plan drawing program right now, though - the most important work at this stage is the conceptual design - working out what impression you want to create - era, location, theme, major scenes etc, not the exact placement of every turnout. Smile, Stein
Probably a 0-4-0 steam engine. For some reason, Americans count wheels, while e.g. the French or Germans count axles. That is a pretty tiny steam engine, from an age way, way back, compared to e.g. a DD40X.
Up to you what engines you run, of course - but if you want to invest a significant amount of time, money and effort in building a layout, you might want to consider picking a rough era and location for your layout, and running engines and rolling stock that would look somewhat normal for that era.
It is much easier to get a layout to look somewhat plausible if there isn't too many disconnects between the elements of the layout. Engines are (relatively speaking) a pretty small part of the expense of building a layout.
Anyways - I don't know if you ever got around to following those links I used to have in my signature (lost in the forum reshuffle) ?
Here is a link to a pretty good page on layout design principles from the Layout Design Special Interest Group.
Think a bit more about what your goal is. Because you first told us you wanted to model trains running through a contemporary mountainous/arid landscape in the SW. Not sure it is a good idea to design a contemporary SW layout built around switching a yard with a tiny 0-4-0 steam engine :-)
Would 18" curves instead of 26" give you much for the yard as you first drew it?
It would give you maybe 15-16" longer tracks. So instead of just being able to fit 3 short cars on the longest track, you would be able to fit 6 shortish cars on the longest track (a 40 foot car in H0 scale takes about 4.5" of length). More modern 60 foot cars takes 1.5 times the length of a 40-foot car - so your longest track would be able to fit 2 cars (as originally drawn by me - with 26" radius curves) or 4 cars (with 18" radius curves).
IMO, not enough of a difference to be worth the hassle of using sharp curves.
Just put the yard between the main and the aisle - that automatically gives you significantly longer tracks - larger circumference on the outside, eh? Also, you won't have to lean across the main while doing things in the yard.
Making the yard a mix of double ended and single ended tracks also helps with length and flexibility of the yard - because you are going to have to use it as staging (*) as well - the longer you can make those tracks, the longer trains you can run.
(*) staging - like the wings in a theater - a place to keep whole trains waiting to come onto the main stage, and a place for trains to depart to when they leave the main stage. Allows you to have one train leaving the layout, and then another train arriving - makes your layout look like a small section of a bigger world, instead of a small self contained layout on an island.
You asked what I used to draw this stuff - XrkCad. It's a freeware program for drawing track plans. Hard to learn, but pretty flexible once you have mastered it.
I wouldn't recommend that you spend a lot of time on learning a track plan drawing program right now, though - the most important work at this stage is the conceptual design - working out what impression you want to create - era, location, theme, major scenes etc, not the exact placement of every turnout.
Ah- I've been counting axles. The steamer is a 2 axle, and really has no purpose but just to scoot around, haha.
All the rest of my engines fall into contemporary era. All the rolling stock does as well except for a smattering of cabooses. When I bought most of the stock cabooses were still in occasional operation.
The rest- all excellent suggestions. I actually visited your links that are in your signature numerous times, and they provided excellent insight.
I know it may seem a bit hardheaded, but I really don't want to limit myself to a very specific scene. I do have specific ideas in my head, but they are from varied scenes... the integration of them makes it all the more enjoyable. Just as one may not enjoy all parts of a specific piece of music while really enjoying some parts of another piece of music... I am attemping to take the parts, modify them, set them in the same key, and put them into something all around enjoyable here.
I dont have the time now to do a reconfig of it... but absolutely excellent corrections!
The fun continues...
80ktsClamp Excellent, Stein. As always, you've got the hamster in my brain churning full speed ahead. To further refine and see if I can get this to work, I only have one "large" engine... the DD40X. The rest are all 4-axle except 1 6-axle and a 0-2-0 steamer.
Excellent, Stein. As always, you've got the hamster in my brain churning full speed ahead.
To further refine and see if I can get this to work, I only have one "large" engine... the DD40X. The rest are all 4-axle except 1 6-axle and a 0-2-0 steamer.
To further refine and see if I can get this to work, I only have one "large" engine... the DD40X. The rest are all 4-axle except 1 6-axle and a 0-2-0 steamer. What I envisioned was that it "delivers" the train to just prior to the yard where one of the smaller switching engines grabs it and pulls it through, or to the short line through the town.
Perhaps 20" radius for the yard (which is looks like is what I used).
What kind of modelling software do you use?
edit: if it helps, I plan on using flex track and non-constant radius turns as necessary.
additional edit: Looks like the medium turnouts work to a 165 degree angle as the yard grows and contracts. Let's use a pico medium for the first turnout and then a wye for the next, and then a pico short for the spur into the engine service. reverse process for the exit.