I've been working on the new layout trackplan over the past couple months as time permits. I still have to add rails for structures. There will be Mountains arount the perimeter which is why the mainline outer rails are inward from the outside walls. I'm looking to do continuous run with passing sidings for a second train but also have an opportunity to try some industry switching. There is a rail that runs across the lower left leg which seems to work well for turning the train to the opposite direction I think works well.
I will be running the layout alone so not to worried about the isles or the reach to the back. As I said the back walls will be scenic mountains and once completed no reaching will be needed. I will be using automation via tortoise switches and Hares for autothrow on certain turnouts.
Thoughts , ideas and suggestions appreciated.
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174
Looks good. Widths are getting a little wide along the walls. I would recommend 30" MAX accept in the blob areas of course.
if you cut the corner off of the 48 X 52 blob, narrow the shelf on the back wall to 24", then you should be able to pull the 52x52 blob out into the center of the room for a longer run.
along the right side or back wall have the main line go behind a backdrop and add a couple hidden staging tracks.
Steve
reverse loop may cause a grade issue. I would just get rid of it. but not a deal breaker for me either.
Hi Lynn:
I like the plan. If you haven't thought of it already I would suggest cutting the corners off of the loop benchwork, or using a curved fascia. That will prevent a lot of bruises from banging into the sharp corners.
According to my math (which could be wrong), if you use a maximum 2.5% grade on the reverse loop left side (short side) and a maximum 2.5% grade on the lower left track from the reverse loop turnout to the bridge, you should be able to get a little over 3.5" seperation between the tracks at the bridge but there are some significant limitations. That 3.5" clearance is assuming that the turnouts at both ends of the return loop connecting track are layed flat, and the vertical easements are 18" long to get to the 2.5% grade. An 18" vertical easement @ 2.5% is fine for short cars and locomotives but it isn't long enough for bigger rolling stock. If you want to run big, modern 6 axle diesels, 85' passenger cars, or 89' flat cars you will need a vertical easement of 30" (assuming a length of 12" per piece of rolling stock). A vertical easement of 30" will require a 3% grade to get 3.5" clearance between tracks. Here is a thread on the subject. Scroll down to the calculation post:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/216109.aspx
Like Steve said, it could be a bit tight unless you go to a steeper grade, but most rolling stock will pass through 3.5". You will have to watch caboose stacks, cranes etc.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Hi again Lynn:
I just realized that there is one potentially problematic issue in your design. Since you only have one reverse loop you can only reverse the train once while going forward. If you want to reverse the train a second time the only way to do that would be to back the train through the short leg of the reverse loop. In theory that isn't too much of a problem, but remember that the track will be sloped and you will be going through curves in the turnouts at the same time. Backing downhill will be less of a problem but going uphill could be tricky. You might have trouble with truck mounted couplers and rolling stock that is under weight, or even overweight if there are lighter cars between the heavy car and the locomotive. One way around the potential issue would be to use a rear end helper locomotive to 'pull' the train up the grade. I don't know how prototypical that would be but it would add some interesting operational aspects to the layout.
Since you are using XTrkCad, I suggest you use the elevation feature, if you are not already doing so. Set the display options to show elevations on your published plan. That way forum members will have more information to work with.
hon30critter Hi again Lynn: I just realized that there is one potentially problematic issue in your design. Since you only have one reverse loop you can only reverse the train once while going forward. If you want to reverse the train a second time the only way to do that would be to back the train through the short leg of the reverse loop. Dave
I just realized that there is one potentially problematic issue in your design. Since you only have one reverse loop you can only reverse the train once while going forward. If you want to reverse the train a second time the only way to do that would be to back the train through the short leg of the reverse loop.
Having only one directional reversing crossover may or may not be a problem. Personally, I'd prefer to have both a "right-hand" and a "left-hand" loop. Of course, the roundhouse solves the engine turning issues, but doesn't help turning entire trains.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
I have a right hand and a left hand reversing section like the fact that I can run trains in any direction I choose. By connecting the middle track to the outside track ( using left hand turnouts, or a curved turnout on the inside track with the tangent going to the outside track) on the right side of the layout you could have a second reversing. Grades would have to be considered and the length of the reversing section would have to be adjusted to compensate for any grade in the outside track
I appreciate the extra set of eyes, good suggestions Guys.
Steve I will be cutting the corners back on the Blobs, helps with a nice smooth fascia. I need the the width on the walls for the mountains which the bases will probably come out 5 inches, so once completed the mountains will be like the walls.The Left wall will stay at 30" so not to take away from the isle width to the left of the Blob. I originally had the 57" x 31" section 62" and cut it back to the now 57" to give more isle room between the two blobs. I can't get to the right side for making a staging track as that is a solid wall, perhaps I didn't state that clearly in first post that there is 4 walls against the benchwork.
Steve I was thinking the same with the grade on the reverse loop and whether I need it or not, I will be doing the road bed on risers so it will be a matter of getting the east lower rail low enough to go under the outer elevated rail but I definately see your point and will take suggestions for another location for a reverse loop rail.
Thanks Dave for doing the math, I hate math. I think your pretty accurate in your accounting. I don't use longer than 50 foot cars so no issues there. I will know better for that reverse loop as I go. I tend to do quite a bit of tweeking with the rails once there on the risers.
Dave as per your second post, yes two reverse loops would be better and if there is a problem with the grade verses the reverse loop then the reverse loop will have to be relocated. I had this reverse loop two layouts back but I wasn't using this type of risers setup but did have quite the grade along that back left side.
You can see in this old layout plan I did from 2011 some simililarity's of the same area.
CentralGulf that is a very good suggestion, problem with XtrkCad is once you have done the plan you build the layout , I am getting reaquainted with the program again but will look up the elevations feature and repost. Back in 2011 I built the layout with plan posted above and did a lower level staging yard, it had a 2% grade to get down to it and the elevations feature was spot on when I did the benchwork to get down to the lower staging. Robert I agree 100% about having 2 reverse loops and haven't thrown that idea out yet, always room for changes. Floridaflyer it would be a great help if you posted your plan or edited mine in a paint program if you don't mind. I'm very interested in your two reverse loop ideas.
CentralGulf that is a very good suggestion, problem with XtrkCad is once you have done the plan you build the layout , I am getting reaquainted with the program again but will look up the elevations feature and repost. Back in 2011 I built the layout with plan posted above and did a lower level staging yard, it had a 2% grade to get down to it and the elevations feature was spot on when I did the benchwork to get down to the lower staging.
Robert I agree 100% about having 2 reverse loops and haven't thrown that idea out yet, always room for changes.
Floridaflyer it would be a great help if you posted your plan or edited mine in a paint program if you don't mind. I'm very interested in your two reverse loop ideas.
I did the elevations in the pprogram but can't seem to get them to show up on the plan to post on here. I did a couple other options for a reverse loop on the right side 2 versions. Input guys?
Lynn:
wickmanI don't use longer than 50 foot cars
Don't forget about your locomotives. You have to base your vertical easements on the longest piece of rolling stock, including locomotives.
I don't think your second plan will do what you want. The connecting track goes in the same direction as the connecting track on the first reverse loop. Follow a theoretical train around the track to see what happens. The way you have the plan drawn you will still get stuck in one direction regardless of which reverse loop you use. The right side reverse loop connection has to go from the upper left to the lower right like you did in the first plan with two loops.
hon30critter I don't think your second reverse loop will do what you want. The connecting track goes in the same direction as the connecting track on the first reverse loop. The right side reverse loop connection has to go from the upper left to the lower right. Follow a theoretical train around the track to see what happens. The way you have the plan drawn you will still get stuck in one direction regardless of which reverse loop you use. Dave
I don't think your second reverse loop will do what you want. The connecting track goes in the same direction as the connecting track on the first reverse loop. The right side reverse loop connection has to go from the upper left to the lower right. Follow a theoretical train around the track to see what happens. The way you have the plan drawn you will still get stuck in one direction regardless of which reverse loop you use.
Yes, I agree. The top layout works for trains travelling in both directions. In the lower layout, once you reverse you cannot get back.
Sorry.
wickman I did the elevations in the pprogram but can't seem to get them to show up on the plan to post on here.
I did the elevations in the pprogram but can't seem to get them to show up on the plan to post on here.
Try playing with Options/Display/Label Scale. You might have it set too low. Also, Options/Display/Label Font Size may need tweaking.
CG
Option one is exactly what I was suggesting. Gives you a lot of flexability.
while you have a turntable with two lead (?) tracks (why?), you don't seem to have any place for extra trains for the locomotives stored around the facility. Looks like your siding tracks can be closer together. Some extra siding in that area would provide some options.
do you really want a switchback? would you be better off with more industrial sidings along the mainline. While there are good reasons to locate them near a siding, those that are trailing can be switched as the train goes in one direction and the other switched after the train has reversed direction.
looks like your sidings are spaced close together. You could add a 3rd siding at the top. More equally spaced provides more options, could be used for passing or staging.
instead of the siding be located where it is on the left, you could add a siding to the reverse section. It would be longer and straighter.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregc while you have a turntable with two lead (?) tracks (why?), you don't seem to have any place for extra trains for the locomotives stored around the facility. Looks like your siding tracks can be closer together. Some extra siding in that area would provide some options. do you really want a switchback? would you be better off with more industrial sidings along the mainline. While there are good reasons to locate them near a siding, those that are trailing can be switched as the train goes in one direction and the other switched after the train has reversed direction. looks like your sidings are spaced close together. You could add a 3rd siding at the top. More equally spaced provides more options, could be used for passing or staging. instead of the siding be located where it is on the left, you could add a siding to the reverse section. It would be longer and straighter.
Thanks Dave and Robert, I have been running a train around and seems to be better with top plan.
CG I'm certainly struggling trying to get the elevations to show.
floridaflyer I kinda thought thats what you meant.
Greg that is a lot of information that I have to try to absorb, I have never been all that great with setting up engine facility tracks and or sidings , lead tracks etc and actually I haven't dealt with that area much yet other than kind of cuttting and pasting from my 2011 plan. If you mean two leads that are connected parallel to the track that goes into the turntable well I've always thought the main rule was to never block the mainline as well it acts as a passing track to another train.
Meanwhile I think this is what you mean for the left side reverse track adding a parellel track. Just had a thought though when you said switch back, your referring to the left blob perhaps, that was another of my ideas I had from a long time back that I thought would be interesting switching, I'll remove it for now to simplify things a bit.Greg please feel free to sketch in your ideasif you have the time, sounds like you know what your talking about?
Hey Lynn:
On your last plan you doubled the connecting track that creates the reverse loop on the left side of the layout. By adding in the extra turnouts you have shortened the amount of track available for the grade and vertical easements. I suggest that you make sure you can still achieve the height separation at the bridges that you want.
Also, you already have a passing siding leading into the top of the left loop. I don't see why you need a second passing siding in the same area but I might be missing something. Ultimately it is your choice as to how you want to run your railroad. I have been revising my track plan for years. On a couple of occasions I have said to myself that I have too much track so I chopped a bunch out. Then I went back to look at what I wanted to be able to do operations wise and I ended up putting most of the track back in.
adding a siding to the reverse section is what I suggested, but I now realize that it isn't very useful since you'll only go thru it once unless you use it for staging. You could still use the existing siding, but it's in an awkard location on a curve. A better location may be the bottom track which is straighter. You can still have a turnout leading from it to the reverse section.
by switchback, i ment the one spur going to the left on the bottom of you group of spurs. I'm sure you want some industries, but no necessarily a switchback.
i wasn't sure what to call the pair of tracks leading to the turntable. A yard lead usually runs parallel to the mainline allowing yard switching cars in the yard. But you don't really have a yard. While some engine facilities do have two tracks to the turntable, i saw no need for two in your case.
again, i think you should consider adding additional space (staging) for additional trains while others are running and additional industrial spurs along the mainline.
I had assumed that by having a turntable you could get away with a single reverse section because the engine could be turned around at the table, assuming you have steam engines. I assume the reverse section on the left complicates the grade that you'll need
I second Greg's suggestion for more sidings along the main line especially on the inside track at the top of the layout. Adding sidings and industries adds interest and operational possibilities even as you say your main objective is continuous running. Also the grade on the left side appears to be in the 3+ range, add in the effect of the curve on the grade and the effective grade is in the 4% range, that's a pretty steep grade. Could you move the point at which the tracks cross each other more towards, or to, the corner thus giving you more length to lessen the grade.?
Just get rid of the reverse loops. Use turn table to turn engine and hook to other end of train. With a folded dogbone you will always be seeing both sides of your trains.
Simpler wiring, less grade problems.
I realized immediately that adding the additional track next to the reverse loop that the train lengths shortened, so that gone.
Greg all very good points, perhaps I should simply remove one reverse loop and add an additional rail down by the TT and this could be used to hold some cars but also be used as a passing siding.
floridaflyer I was going to add structures and service rails once the mainline was in. The reason I'm doing the mainline first is I can cut the roadbed from 3/4 plywood and lay them in line on the benchwork. I have found with the past couple layouts that what looks good on a plan doesn't always work on the benchwork so what I've found works is getting a solid mainline which would include bridges, deep trestles, turntable in place and then start moving structures around until they work.
Seeing as I've done this same setup with the raised rail crossing the lower rail on my last layout so I feel pretty confident with the elevations so I'm pretty confident I can make the grades work, although I do understand your concerns. I don't think the rail crossing over the bottom effects the grade so much but more that reverse loop connecting back up on the bottom and the left side reverse loop track.
I know what the benchwork will look like for the room as its already put together and layed out on the floor.
Choops I'm DCC, wiring is very simple. I prefer to have a continuous run, good point with always seeing both sides of the train. Whether I have a reverse loops or not is not a deal breaker but the passing siding are perhaps more important.
wickman Seeing as I've done this same setup with the raised rail crossing the lower rail on my last layout so I feel pretty confident with the elevations so I'm pretty confident I can make the grades work, although I do understand your concerns. I don't think the rail crossing over the bottom effects the grade so much but more that reverse loop connecting back up on the bottom and the left side reverse loop track.
I've seen comments about 'raising' the rail and I know you are looking for a 4" separation, but have you considered 'lowering' the other rail? Might make the benchwork a little more complicated, but it might be possible. Raising one route 3" and lowering the other 1" might help out with the vertical curves at the turnouts. Just a thought.
ROBERT PETRICK wickman Seeing as I've done this same setup with the raised rail crossing the lower rail on my last layout so I feel pretty confident with the elevations so I'm pretty confident I can make the grades work, although I do understand your concerns. I don't think the rail crossing over the bottom effects the grade so much but more that reverse loop connecting back up on the bottom and the left side reverse loop track. I've seen comments about 'raising' the rail and I know you are looking for a 4" separation, but have you considered 'lowering' the other rail? Might make the benchwork a little more complicated, but it might be possible. Raising one route 3" and lowering the other 1" might help out with the vertical curves at the turnouts. Just a thought. Robert
Exactly what I was thinking Robert. Basicly the grid benchwork is 0 elevation ie water level and build up from there a few inches for semi level terrain where lower rail would run through then the higher rail is not 4 inches above 0 elevation but more like 6". Hard to explain but yes I know what you mean. This is why I like to get the mainline laying on the 0 elevation then start raising with 1x2 risers screwed to benchwork, I then raise and lowerand it eventually comes together.
The reverse loops complicates design and construction but adds very little to operations. I would just get rid of it.
- Douglas
Doughless The reverse loops complicates design and construction but adds very little to operations. I would just get rid of it.
Point taken, darn decisions.
Thoughts on the changes?
not sure what your expectations are based on your changes. Seems like you would be happy with
I agree with others that there may be little advantage to having any reverse loops. The ultimate destination for the trains is the siding with the turntable. The siding allows an engine to be put on the opposite end of the train to run it in the reverse direction. The TT allows steamers to be turned as well as storage for locomotives.
I see you've added an extra siding near the turntable as well as two crossovers. I think you need the extra siding but see little value in the crossovers. I know it sacrifices siding length, but I'd suggest the the track leading to the TT be between the 1st and 2nd turnouts of the sidings so that an engine can reach both the 2nd and 3rd sidings (starting from left). assuming the leftmost siding (#1) is usually clear, an engine may back out onto the main, using siding #1 to get to the opposite end of trains on sidings #2 and 3.
Again, I think you can use an additional siding on topmost outer track.
As already mentioned, I think you will want additional industrial spurs throughout the layout. They don't need to be bunched up as you had originally, but some can be. Again, a freight could switch cars on trailing spurs, can be reversed at the turntable and retrace it's path switching the remaining spurs.
gregc not sure what your expectations are based on your changes. Seems like you would be happy with just couple trains sitting on the layout, sitting in sidings when not running two trains running in opposite directions or one behind the other? a stable of locomotives to lead them (or do you just want the TT to turn an engine)? minimal but some industrial switching mainline scenery I agree with others that there may be little advantage to having any reverse loops. The ultimate destination for the trains is the siding with the turntable. The siding allows an engine to be put on the opposite end of the train to run it in the reverse direction. The TT allows steamers to be turned as well as storage for locomotives. I see you've added an extra siding near the turntable as well as two crossovers. I think you need the extra siding but see little value in the crossovers. I know it sacrifices siding length, but I'd suggest the the track leading to the TT be between the 1st and 2nd turnouts of the sidings so that an engine can reach both the 2nd and 3rd sidings (starting from left). assuming the leftmost siding (#1) is usually clear, an engine may back out onto the main, using siding #1 to get to the opposite end of trains on sidings #2 and 3. Again, I think you can use an additional siding on topmost outer track. As already mentioned, I think you will want additional industrial spurs throughout the layout. They don't need to be bunched up as you had originally, but some can be. Again, a freight could switch cars on trailing spurs, can be reversed at the turntable and retrace it's path switching the remaining spurs.
Thanks Greg for taking the time with a nice post.
Yes Greg you are reading me pretty close with my expectations, the TT I just want for turning engines.
The ideal layout for me would room for scenery along with bridges, waterways and mountains, the TT area is for the scene of TT , coal tower and engine house and all the mess that goes with the area.
Although I have never tried switching industries I would like to have it available but without holding up the train on the mainline , this does cause me some conflict because I need the extra siding off any mainline so the rail to industry can be used.
I also agree with all that say reverse loops can have little advantage and would take away from my list of needs.
The extra siding near the TT is actually for the coal tower and ash pit.I thought the two cross over were needed to move an engine over to enter or exit to Engine Facility area, I may me wrong. I did think the track leading into the TT should be between the two crossover turnouts as well, aren't they where your referring too?
I was thinking the same with the top track with adding an additional siding but when you say outer do you not mean nearest the isle so the rails can run to the industries? I was just starting to get to adding rail access to the industries so that they don't interfere with the mainline as you can see from my working copy I posted.
My mainline is pretty much done now.
Thanks for posting the article, very interesting.
wickmanI was thinking the same with the top track with adding an additional siding but when you say outer do you not mean nearest the isle so the rails can run to the industries?
industrial spurs don't have to be near sidings. But you'll want roughly the same distance between each siding in both directions.
gregc wickman I was thinking the same with the top track with adding an additional siding but when you say outer do you not mean nearest the isle so the rails can run to the industries? industrial spurs don't have to be near sidings. But you'll want roughly the same distance between each siding in both directions.
wickman I was thinking the same with the top track with adding an additional siding but when you say outer do you not mean nearest the isle so the rails can run to the industries?
Greg just to make sure I'm on the same page as you, when you say near sidings your saying sidings like passing sidings or sidings where cars may be left correct? I'm of the believe that any industial service rail needs to come off a siding which is connected to a mainline or branch so that the mainline or branch doesn't get its traffic haulted.