Scale is HO. Bench work is 10' 7" x 8' x 27" deep with a 30" lift out bridge to access the center. Benchwork is finished, just trying to get my track plan down before I start.
A couple very minor points:
1. Your two most distant yard tracks are the through track and the one next to it. You can lengthen them both by about 2 feet (four 40' cars) if you let them join the other yard tracks on the curve a bit to the left, above the engine house. The curved portion of the switch will fit in the space where you show a curved section of track.
2. The crossover directly in front of the Water Street Terminal concerns me because any train that tries to come from the outer track to access the Carson Street Terminal and the Fuel Depot must do a switchback move in order to do so. I see two options: First, put the switch to Carson/Fuel Depot on the liftout. The second option is to put the crossover between the words "City" and "Residential". Either of these options would probably make for more efficient operation.
Overall, I like the plan.
Tom
ACY A couple very minor points: 1. Your two most distant yard tracks are the through track and the one next to it. You can lengthen them both by about 2 feet (four 40' cars) if you let them join the other yard tracks on the curve a bit to the left, above the engine house. The curved portion of the switch will fit in the space where you show a curved section of track.
Is this what you mean? The pic is using a #6 Atlas Custume-Line ( what all my turnouts are ). If so, just will not work, kepping my curves at no less than a 22" radius.
ACY 2. The crossover directly in front of the Water Street Terminal concerns me because any train that tries to come from the outer track to access the Carson Street Terminal and the Fuel Depot must do a switchback move in order to do so. I see two options: First, put the switch to Carson/Fuel Depot on the liftout. The second option is to put the crossover between the words "City" and "Residential". Either of these options would probably make for more efficient operation. Overall, I like the plan. Tom
... and a couple of major points:
As you are about to invest a lot of time and money into this layout, it may be worthwhile to consider the above points, even if it means altering the already existing benchwork!
Overall, the layout offers a lot of potential!
ACY1. Your two most distant yard tracks are the through track and the one next to it. You can lengthen them both by about 2 feet (four 40' cars) if you let them join the other yard tracks on the curve a bit to the left, above the engine house. The curved portion of the switch will fit in the space where you show a curved section of track.
doesn't the curved section of track serve as a yard-lead, allowing cars to be sorted without using the mainline tracks and interferring with trains running on the main? Of course there is a trade-off between the length of the yard-lead and the yard tracks.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I don't seem to be able to open jiminmichigan's drawings. Do I need something else to open them?
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
It's true that lengthening those yard tracks would mean a shorter switching lead. When I made the suggestion, I considered that to be one of the usual tradeoffs that need to be considered. However, if the OP is correct in saying it won't fit, then the whole point is academic. By all means, do what is practical.
When I mentioned a switchback move, I was referring to a local switcher that is coming from the outside track. Assuming right-hand running on your mainline, that local must back through the crossover, then run forward, then back into the spurs. That's a switchback.
ACY When I mentioned a switchback move, I was referring to a local switcher that is coming from the outside track. Assuming right-hand running on your mainline, that local must back through the crossover, then run forward, then back into the spurs. That's a switchback.
Gotcha. The outter main has a turnout to the inner just as it comes out of the tunnel on the left wall, so no need really, to switchback.
Sir Madog ... and a couple of major points: Your mainline tracks are too close to the wall. It always pays off, in terms of visual appearance, to have some room between the tracks and the wall, enough to put a building or trees in between. This adds visual depth and will enhance the overall look of the layout. The vast majority of the track is lined up with the walls and the sides of the benchwork. This gives the layout an unnatural, toy-like appearance. In reality, railroad tracks "meander" through the scenery, following the terrain. As you are about to invest a lot of time and money into this layout, it may be worthwhile to consider the above points, even if it means altering the already existing benchwork!
I understand your thoughts, but I just do not have the realestate to meander the tracks around scenery. Same with being close to the wall, I could not have what I want, if I brought the tracks in another 3"+.
I plan on having building fronts of industrial nature on the left wall. I have the mountain on the back wall. City building fronts on right wall.
Jim - I tried to draw your track plan, considering the points I mentioned and - failed! You are right - your room is not big enough for a sleek look and sweeping curves. A real space killer is your yard ladder ...
Is a double track main a must have?
Only a must have in the fact I can run one train on the outter main while I have another on the inside moving cars to terminals, ect, then allowing the inside train move to the outter and bringing the outter train in to do the same. Keeps from tying up a main during maneuvers?
And yea, the ladder is a space killer, but one I think is needed? I currently have 18 cars awaiting my track ( and 4 Engines ) and I do not want to do 0-5-0 switching of the cars.
JimInMichigan ACY Is this what you mean? The pic is using a #6 Atlas Custume-Line ( what all my turnouts are ). If so, just will not work, kepping my curves at no less than a 22" radius.
ACY
Atlas makes a turnout that has a 22" radius diverging route, item #545, so you can use it as a replacement for the #6 that you are showing above.
http://www.advantagehobby.com/163026/ATL545/?utm_source=google+shopping&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=product&gclid=Cj0KEQiA_ZOlBRD64c7-gOzvrP0BEiQAAYBnd7zJjnsRkBaP7Ulu6Y1ARf9-1qOgOnE_LSUToUxF5lcaAuG-8P8HAQ
- Douglas
DoughlessAtlas makes a turnout that has a 22" radius diverging route, item #545, so you can use it as a replacement for the #6 that you are showing above.
Note that this is a SnapSwitch and that the frog is much tighter than the #6s that the Original Poster is planning elsewhere. So engines and cars that run fine on the rest of the layout may be finicky about that one turnout.
Might be better to redesign that section for more reliability overall.
The S-curves at the top of the drawing on either side are also potential porblem areas. It is usually recommended to have a length of straight track equal to the length of your longest engine or car between curves turning in opposite directions.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama Doughless Atlas makes a turnout that has a 22" radius diverging route, item #545, so you can use it as a replacement for the #6 that you are showing above. Note that this is a SnapSwitch and that the frog is much tighter than the #6s that the Original Poster is planning elsewhere. So engines and cars that run fine on the rest of the layout may be finicky about that one turnout. Might be better to redesign that section for more reliability overall. The S-curves at the top of the drawing on either side are also potential porblem areas. It is usually recommended to have a length of straight track equal to the length of your longest engine and car between curves turning in opposite directions.
Doughless Atlas makes a turnout that has a 22" radius diverging route, item #545, so you can use it as a replacement for the #6 that you are showing above.
The S-curves at the top of the drawing on either side are also potential porblem areas. It is usually recommended to have a length of straight track equal to the length of your longest engine and car between curves turning in opposite directions.
Yes, the frog is sharper, but I offered that option since the cars and locos that negotiate the 22 inch radius loop on my layout have no problems negotiating the two snap switches I have, but your point is well taken that it could give the OP some concerns.
Doughless JimInMichigan ACY Is this what you mean? The pic is using a #6 Atlas Custume-Line ( what all my turnouts are ). If so, just will not work, kepping my curves at no less than a 22" radius. Atlas makes a turnout that has a 22" radius diverging route, item #545, so you can use it as a replacement for the #6 that you are showing above.
Yes, they do. I've heard unfavorable results in the Atlas snap-switch turnouts, and was recommended in using nothing but Atlas custom-line turnouts, which is what I have done.
Also, this is the result if I use the snap-switch turnout. It puts the lead in track 1.3" center to center from the track above it. Even if I could get the proper cleance from the track above it, I dont see a real gain from doing so:
JimInMichigan Yes, they do. I've heard unfavorable results in the Atlas snap-switch turnouts, and was recommended in using nothing but Atlas custom-line turnouts, which is what I have done. Also, this is the result if I use the snap-switch turnout. It puts the lead in track 1.3" center to center from the track above it. Even if I could get the proper cleance from the track above it, I dont see a real gain from doing so:
Is there a reason you need to have that one track circle around the top of the yard, and can't just merge the "lead" track into the main where it is exposed from the tunnel? You already have a double track main with crossovers.
I have two of the snaps. The construction is the same as the custom line. As Cuyama mentioned, the difference is in the frog and the tightness of the diverging radius.
Not trying to persuade, just offering an option.
Doughless Is there a reason you need to have that one track circle around the top of the yard, and can't just merge the "lead" track into the main where it is exposed from the tunnel? You already have a double track main with crossovers. I have two of the snaps. The construction is the same as the custom line. As Cuyama mentioned, the difference is in the frog and the tightness of the diverging radius. Not trying to persuade, just offering an option.
Its not the construction, its the radious of the point turnouts I've been told.
And I tried to use a turnout where the inner main comes out of the tunnel. Directly out from the tunnel and it was way too far down into the ladder. After the S curve, radiuses were too far out of wack.
And thanx Doughless. I love the feed back. if it's doable, I'm all for changes.
JimInMichigan And I tried to use a turnout where the inner main comes out of the tunnel. Directly out from the tunnel and it was way too far down into the ladder. After the S curve, radiuses were too far out of wack.
Hmm...I think if you didn't have the dip in the main line or played with the angles coming out of the tunnel, it seems like there is enough room to not have to have that track circle the entire yard.
As Cuyama mentioned, you may need to relook at the entire yard section. Remember, fewer but longer yard tracks look better than many short ones....and they can hold the same number of cars. And it will operate just as well provided the yard lead is long enough.
There is also a concept in layout design that tries to match the size of the yard with the amount of switching (or train running) that you want to do. Just at first blush, it looks like you have more yard capacity than you need for the number of industries you want to switch. But you may want a large yard for other reasons.
If you haven't looked at Cuyama's website, it might be a good time to do that. Its linked in his above response.
Edit: it occurred to me that it looks like you are using only full sections of track. Most every layout involves trimming sectional track to gain the proper angles coming out of curves, unless a modeler is planning on building one of the Atlas trackplans out of their book.
These are essential to layout building IMO:
http://www.micromark.com/xuron-track-cutter,7465.html
Thanks for posting your plan.
After twenty plus years of building layouts that just don't fit my room and then tearing them down when they don't my desires. I see a way to get one I'll stick with!
My problem has always been that I want to have continuous run with a yard and other sidings but my eyes are bigger than my space. I have a building that is 10'x16' and the way you have done your's will work in my space. I like the long runs.
Thanks again. Trainmedic
OK, after the advice of adding the straight between the " S " curves ( done ), getting rid of that lead track that was coming up/around to the ladder ( done ), taking out a couple ladder tracks ( done ). Here is where I am at:
Trainmedic Thanks for posting your plan. After twenty plus years of building layouts that just don't fit my room and then tearing them down when they don't my desires. I see a way to get one I'll stick with! My problem has always been that I want to have continuous run with a yard and other sidings but my eyes are bigger than my space. I have a building that is 10'x16' and the way you have done your's will work in my space. I like the long runs. Thanks again. Trainmedic
trainmedic... If you use SCARM, I'd be more then happy to send you a scarm file of the above.
I've never tried SCARM but just downloaded it. I plan to get started today tearing down my old track work. So if you send me the file I'll have a starting point.
My E-mail is trainmedic@gmx.com
Thanks again for your input. Part of my problem has been free handing my track.
Trainmedic
I see a double S-curve coming into the yard from the turnout added on top of the plan. I would move the turnout to the right where the mains curve in, and flip it so the diverging track continues on the inner main-- less prototypical, but the trackwork flows better that way. You can use flextrack to keep the outer main's curve parallel to the inner main if that's important to you.
P
What software did you use?
instead of two mainline tracks, have you considered a crossover (or overpass) and a couple of sidings so that a train must complete two laps around the room before returing to the same point. The sidings would allow two trains to pass one another going in opposite directions.
crisco1 What software did you use?
SCARM ( Simple Computer Aided Railroad Modeler )
gregc instead of two mainline tracks, have you considered a crossover (or overpass) and a couple of sidings so that a train must complete two laps around the room before returing to the same point. The sidings would allow two trains to pass one another going in opposite directions.
Greg..Modeling in HO. An over/under would create too large of an incline ( was over 4% when I tried somthing simular ).