New layout. Please let me hear your suggestions.

[SpaceMouse]

Okay,

You have a couple friends over. The first one brings a train in from the interchange track around the layout and into the yard. The second friend starts seting up his train on the interchange track. You break train number one down. While friend number one takes his engine in for fuel and service. And then yuou break down train number 2 and he takes his engine in for service. Friend number one picks up the east-bound and goes off to set off cars and pick up new ones. Friend number 2 head west with the perishables and has priority. He makes two laps and sets out his cars and makes his pick-ups.

In the one track senario, engine #1 must clear the track every time engine #2 comes through. This is a lot of interaction.

In the two track senario, it is just a matter of running around the the track on a different main. Little to no interaction.

It all depends on what you are looking for and/or what is the prototype like.

[Anonymous]

Update:

Somehow, I knew that this would happen..
I fed this beast 8 more inches in length to "relaxe" the layout a bit.
I also made a single track version of it.

Single or double track - which one do you like better?

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Kyle S.

[

The original layout by Chris Roper actually is a single track layout. I toyed around
with it for a while, but it just seems that double tracks offer more in terms of
operation.

Actually it is just the opposite. If you have trains running two directions, you have to work in your passing sidings and schedule meets.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ereimer

...i can hardly believe all that fits on a 3' x 6' . darn you n scale people !

Modeling in N scale does have it's advantages when it comes to tight spaces.
On the other hand, the electron microscope that you need from time to time to
assemble small parts, does take up a lot of space on your workbench. [:)]

The original layout by Chris Roper actually is a single track layout. I toyed around
with it for a while, but it just seems that double tracks offer more in terms of
operation.

QUOTE: Originally posted by dommegr

...Heh, good luck. Wait til you see how easy it could be for 3' X 6' to grow into 12' X 18'. Right now I'm working on an N-scale doortop layout in my living room. I want to get another door to attach to it. This is an evil hobby.

I agree! [:D]

[selector]

It looks crisp and clean, tight, and interesting. You should get a lot of joy out of this one!

[ereimer]

wow this plan is coming along very nicely . i can hardly believe all that fits on a 3' x 6' . darn you n scale people !

an interesting challenge .... now try getting rid of the double track main and going back to single track . unless your reason for the double track is that you like to watch trains run around the layout in both directions while you do some switching . in that case it's perfect as is [:)]

[dommegr]

"Now the biggest challange is to keep the layout within the space I got.
Honey? About the livingroom.. Would you mind if I... "

Heh, good luck. Wait til you see how easy it could be for 3' X 6' to grow into 12' X 18'. Right now I'm working on an N-scale doortop layout in my living room. I want to get another door to attach to it. This is an evil hobby.

Greg

[SpaceMouse]

Your track is very good, it has come a long way.

Lately however, I've become convinced that staging is important in that it iincreases your operational capacity, even if it is just a one track fiddle track. So with that in mind, how about reversing your interchange track having it start from as far left as you can get it and running parallel with your team track. You can then build your outside world trains and bring them into your layout for classification and distribution. Then you send your out-going shipments the same way they came in, out the interchange track..

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dommegr

Very nice. It's been interesting following this one and seeing the evolution of a plan.

I like how you're left the interchange and team track as well as the one just below the harbor open in case you decide to expand at some point.

This has truly been a journey for me, and a learning experience as well.
From starting out with no clue, to starting to get the picture, to getting a grasp
on what a layout should be like - thanks to all the help I found here.

Now the biggest challange is to keep the layout within the space I got.
Honey? About the livingroom.. Would you mind if I... [:)]

[ghonz711]

Excelent work with this one! I can't belive how this one turned out. I like it so much, i wan't to build it in HO scale! Great work.

[dommegr]

Very nice. It's been interesting following this one and seeing the evolution of a plan.

I like how you're left the interchange and team track as well as the one just below the harbor open in case you decide to expand at some point.

[Anonymous]

Update:

Here are the modifications I made from my previous plan:
I connected the yard lead to the inner main and replaced the double slip
with regular cross-overs.
I also flipped the cross-over in the lower-right to make it easier for a train
on the outer main to get into the yard.
And I extended the A/D track to the right as well.
I got rid of the "Timesaver" and replaced it with more common industry.

The diagonal area in the center was left empty, to allow for a modest slope
to raise the elevation of the upper right-hand corner and maybe have a
little downtown scenery there.

I made some simulated runs, and it all seems to work great.

Well, here it is: Plan #7. Tada! (I do enjoy the feedback here a lot!)

[Anonymous]

Spacemouse,
I like your idea to expand the "interchange" with a second track and to lengthen it.
I'll run this through the simulation to see if that'll fit. Regarding the "Timesaver", see below.

Byron,
I too had started to wonder, if that space couldn't be used better. I can see, how
the "Timesaver" can become tedious after a while. I thank you for your heads-up
and will check out the links you supplied.
I also agree, that because of the double track layout, access to the yard from the
outer main with trains going CCW has become difficult. Thanks for pointing that
out. I will look into lengthening the A/D track as well.
I can easily simulate train operations in 3rd Planit, which I'm using to plan the
layout. I'm a newbe when it comes to MRR, but luckily an old wiz when
it comes to computers and how to use them in a case like this. [:)]
I'll run some trains around to see how this will work.

Thanks again for the help everyone! I'll keep you posted.

[cuyama]

Kyle,

I'm also late to this discussion. I've always thought Chris Roper's design was a decent layout plan, except for the Timesaver section. The Timesaver was originally designed as a parlor game and many people (myself very much included) find it tedious after one or two times through. A more "railroad-like" configuration would prove more engaging over time and could be made to fit in that space.

This has been discussed extensively on this and other forums., so I won't abuse that poor horse any longer. Friend Craig Bisgeier posted this on the downsides of the Timesaver:
http://www.housatonicrr.com/timesaver.htm

On another forum, I also posted a long diatribe a few weeks ago:
http://www.trainboard.com/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/33/t/000699/p/2.html

There is also a page on my website describing "fun for one" operations that may be of some interest. There are lots of ways to add challenge and fun without resorting to the puzzle nature of the traditional Timesaver.

The other challenge is that in making the plan double tracked, it now seems a bit difficult for trains on the main to enter the yard. Or for a train made up in the yard to get to the main. This can be fixed with some re-arranging of the crossovers. To see how this plays out, try working through the moves between the outside main and the yard.

Chris Roper's original single-tracked version has a double ended arrival/departure track with a switching lead. The single-track version you showed shortened this track a lot and the double tracked version changes that area even further. This is an important element of Chris' original design and you'll want to think through how you add the function back in as you change the track plan.

Double-tracking is not a bad idea for a small layout, but the necessary crossovers take some space and must be positioned thoughtfully to allow both mains access to the yard (when there is a yard). Since the original plan was for single track, some of these issues may be a "fun drain" later on in a double-track version. As noted above, one way to determine how serious these problems are (and how much they might bother you) is to "walk through" the process. Some people take a large copy or printout of the plan and move paper counters representing trains through the motions of the planned operations -- time well spent.

Regards,

Byron

[SpaceMouse]

I'm entering this dialog very late. I'm wondering about the switchbacks in the lower center. While it creates a switching puzzle, it seems to limit the real world industries it can service. Cars set out on the lower two levels will have to me moved every time you wanted to place a car in the upper tracks.

Whenever I look at a operational layout I think staging. The "interchange" track could be used that way. It could be increased in length by sliding the turnouts to interchange and team tracks to the right. You could possibly then add a second track to the interchange area. Then with just a short view block, you could have two fiddle tracks in which you could set up your staging and bring in trains (and sent them back out) from the rest of world. This would multiply your operational capacity significantly.

[selector]

You are correct that your space is going to preclude all but the slightest of elevations. That said, anything that you do to alter elevations here and there will add immensely to the realism of the setting. So, my vote would be to go ahead, but count on less than 3/4" elevation/depression before you level the track out again, with grades taking place over about 28" to get it near 2.5%. That's a chunk of space for your layout size.

If you would consider wrapping that team track down around the two mains, running along the top of a cut, you could put an industry in the lower right corner. Then, the 28" grade would be no problem at all.

[Anonymous]

Update:
I added a double slip in the upper left, instead of having 2 separate
cross-overs to save some space. I also extended the yard lead, to match the
classification tracks and to allow for power as well.
This might be the final layout plan for now! [:)]

A question regarding elevation:
It might be nice, to have the upper right hand corner slightly elevated and
the lower left hand corner with the harbor slightly down. Do you guys think
that is possible, with a plan that compact? I don't really have much straight
track to create a slope, without having TO's in the slope as well.
Any ideas? Thanks!

[ghonz711]

I think the new plan is best. I am very suprised how you got the yard with a drill track. Your little switching areo is cool too. I hope to see some photo's of your completed layout.

Ghonz... spot the relivance?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

Very interesting! Should provide many hours of development and fun.

Centred, low, are two parallel tracks running obliquely, with several switches between. What is the intent of the left-most switch that leads to a track that leads to another switch halfway along the cross-over?

This is an implementation of John Allen's "Timesaver". A switching puzzle.
You'll find some more information here: http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/sw-timesaver.html

I don't claim to fully understand this concept, but it sure sounds like something
that might be fun to have. [:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Stuckarmchairing

[8D] A world of differance kyle! A much more operations friendly layout.

Thanks! I'm glad you like it. [:)]
I'm wondering however, if the layout is flipped left/right the wrong way now?
Traffic on the outer loop would be going counter-clockwise, and clockwise on the
inner loop here in the US. It seems to me, that this layout would work better, if
I flipped it around the other way. For example, the entry to the Arrival/Departure track for the yard is against the direction of traffic on the inner loop.
What do you think?

[selector]

Very interesting! Should provide many hours of development and fun.

Centred, low, are two parallel tracks running obliquely, with several switches between. What is the intent of the left-most switch that leads to a track that leads to another switch halfway along the cross-over?

[Anonymous]

[8D] A world of differance kyle! A much more operations friendly layout.

[Anonymous]

Ok,
I modified the layout once more. I painstakingly added a double loop,
maintaining a minimum radius of 11.75” for the mains. Huffa….
I don’t model exclusively in steam, so I’d like to keep the turntable.
I also added another line to the turntable.
What do you think of the layout now? And thank you for your suggestions!

[Anonymous]

Hi, everyone!

In my tireless research, I came across this plan:
http://users.iafrica.com/c/ca/caroper/tutorial/advanced.htm

It was love at first sight, I'd say..
I decided to toss my original plan and to go with this one, as it offers
plenty of operations. Not much room for scenery, but I can live with that.
I adapted it to my 3x6 bench, using Peco c55 track & turnouts.
I am using #6 TO's on the main and sidings, and #4 TO's in the yards.
Minimum radius on the main is 11.75"

What do you guys think of this one?

[Train 284]

Looks good to me! Amazing what you can do with N scale in a small space huh?

[dtbowyer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by grande man

QUOTE: Originally posted by dtbowyer

With a little shifting on the bottom half to connect the track, you could take the industry cut in half by grande man's view block and have a loads in/empties out operation (coal mine/power plant). Adds a nice operational option.

Overall, looks great. Should be a lot of fun to operate!

David

David, are you talking about a thru the backdrop industry? If so, he'd need to keep track elevation closely in mind on each side of the backdrop. That would be easy to do with a foam base though. Great idea! That would add alot to the operations.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking about the grade. Maybe a quarry/crusher set up with a relatively steep downgrade to the quarry from the upper side. Might not be enough room for the trackwork, but would be cool if you could make it fit!

I have to agree about the turntable, although with an extension for the yard, might be able to move it there at the very end. (That might make enough room to get the quarry thing in, too!)

Still think it's a neat layout!

[grandeman]

If you went with Crandell's idea of dropping the turntable, you could expand the double main further out and have a decent yard with an elevated spur climbing behind it. By starting the spur further back as it exits the turn on the upper left it would be longer and look better.

[selector]

Could you dispense with the table? Save it for another layout. Instead, have a two or three-bay stall/roundhouse for engine work, and save the space for some other shacks or services. That way, you could retain the integrity of your intended plan to have a balance of ops and scenery.

I hope you are not discouraged. It takes patience and determination in equal measure to get something that makes everyone around you bend in to take a close look, nod, and all sit back with a sigh... [^]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Stuckarmchairing

2 problems, Yard seems like an afterthought in the plan, no A/D tracks, and no drill track, if your gonna switch the yard your gonna need a proper set up, and you cant do it in your space, perhaps build the yard has a module that extends off the layout? You wouldnt need more then say, four feet of 12'' shelf to make a proper yard.

The turn table is crammed in, it would be wiser to rethink its position, or get rid of it altogether, engines have to make power moves on the mainline to get to their trains in the yard, and thats just not prototypical.

Rethink the yard and the engine terminal, maybe add some staging tracks?

Well, I can't argue with that..
My original layout was based on the 3x5 "Atlas Expanded Double Track Loop" layout, which has no yard at all, just some industry. I added a small yard located in the center, branching off the inner loop , but it was somewhat short. When I started to redesigned the layout I found that the current location of the yard gave me the "most bang for the buck". But I agree, it's an awkward location.
My biggest problem is simply not having more room available then the current 3'x6'. I guess that something will have to give. I'm fighting the desire to have plenty of scenery, but also plenty of operation. I'm sure I'm not alone on that one..
This much I know: I do like having a double loop to get some action going.
I also like a yard and I hope to fit the turntable & the roundhouse in there somewhere.
I'll look at some yard layouts and see how I can fit them into the center. My downtown scene might end up being a little smaller, but oh well.
Although painful - I do appreciate your suggestions.