QUOTE: Originally posted by rails5 A plan you can have a lot of fun with. I'm not really adding anything, just want to emphasize a couple of the points made by others: (1) lack of run-around track will, I fear, make your switching frustrating at times. (2) Putting the track at a slight angle to the fascia will give it a much more interesting "llok" and you have plenty of space for this (only needs a few inches.
QUOTE: Originally posted by leighant I am so presumptuous as to play with your space and your "druthers" as to start and design a trackplan that has little relation to yours, just for the fun of it. I have only gotten as far as laying out a double-track mainline loop and staging and an area for a town that is a junction between ATSF double-track mainline and a branch.
QUOTE: Originally posted by leighant Did you have any thoughts about specific towns being represented, industries or some particular part of Arizona? Or a general suggestion of the area. Desert or forested area?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher This isn't the same space you had originally posted, is it? What happened, switch rooms? First I noticed there are lots of "switchback" industrial sidings. There are no assoicated run around tracks. There needs to be some way to let the locomotive get to the other side of the cars. Then some of the leads on the switchbacks (like the one on the left with the loco house? are too short. They must be able to hold the loco and at least one car. I think I would try to fit at least one industry in the area "outside" the room. Lower left or right corners. Could be really interesting. The tracks are all very aligned to the edges of the benchwork. Just a tiny bit of angle or curvature in the tracks can add some interest. Same for the highway, two long exactly straight sections at 90 degrees to one another .... Then the opposite for your grade crossings, I think the road would turn a little bit to hit the rails closer to a 90 degree crossing. The two towns (top and right side) seem very samesh {If I can invent a word}. They both have lots of parallel track. Here is a rather fuzzy picture of modular layout under construction that is 2 feet wide. Notice now not parallel or lined up with the bench work the track are. Edit Again:---> Looking at this again ... While the two towns could be considered 4 because of how they are arranged on "sides" of the main (with only one crossover "in" a town). I think I would move or re-move the track to the rear of the mains and let the mains take up that extra space. I would also change the radius on the outside main curve to 28.5" radius. I mean the track is already taking up that much space might as well use it to increase the radius.
QUOTE: Originally posted by fwright A nice plan overall. I wonder about the length of the wye tail track beyond the crossover - it looks like it's about 12-14". This would be barely enough - with a short loco and a 40ft car - to get loco plus one car at a time into the industrial spurs. To fix, I recommend moving the crossover closer to the wye, giving more of a tail track to access the industrial spurs. Absolute minimum tail length should be the longest loco you would use for switching the spurs plus the longest car you plan on putting on the spurs. yours in planning Fred W
QUOTE: Originally posted by leighant I see what looks like 3 "towns", 2 with small yards and 1 with a wye. Your railroad seems to be set up for primarily left-hand running. A train on the left-hand track running counterclockwise (inside track) can back into the yard on the right side of the plan. A train on the right-hand track running clockwise (outside track) can back into the yard at the top of the plan. I think of Santa Fe as mostly right-hand running, except for a short stretch in Arizona where the lines are divided and left-hand running is used because of favorable grades. You mentioned Arizona as a setting but your trackplan does not suggest the alinement of a hill-climbing situation. Mirror-imaging your plan would make the yards work for right-hand running. One plus I see on your plan: the "yards" are arranged off of opposite mains so that the lead for one can overlap the other yard on the main that is not involved with yard switching. Two operators could switch at once without running into each other. The yard on the right hand side seems to have only very short tracks-- 6 cars, 5 cars and 3 cars respectively. One would have to "double" the yard, ie pull cars from one track and then couple to those on another track, to get any kind of a train of 8, 9 or 10 cars. The very front track of that yard of course needs to ben kept open for access to the enginehouse. On a railroad this short overall, it seems like a long lead to the enginehouse. Perhaps oil, water and sanding equipment is to be located along the lead? What is the switchback stub off one of the enginehouse tracks? It might be worthwhile as a place to spot a company service tankcar to service the engine facility.... (such as http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/aay.jpg , my N-scale kitbash from an old Concor/Kato car) As a place to spot an additional locomotive, accessible only by switchback movement, it might be preferable to eliminate the switchback, make the two enginehouse track a loco length or more longer each, and allow placing 2 or more locos on each spur, cutting gaps in the track to allow cutoff for DC operation (not necessary if using DCC) I am assuming this layout is small enough to be run with 2-pack DC, each track block controlled by a DPDT toggle to select one pack or the other. The two long tracks at the top of the plan are 10 cars and 7 cars long respectively, long enough to be used as yard tracks on this size layout. But at least one is apparently dedicated to be used as an industry spur and a lead for a switchback industry spot. My own prejudice for a layout of this size representing a slice of a major railroad: I don't think it is big enough for a "real working yard" that most of the trains on the layout come from. There ought to be a lot of trains that just "go through" the scene and only a handful that switch or go into a small yard. On this size layout, I would try to have STAGING for 2 or 3 mainline trains that can run through, giving the feel of a heavy mainline. Next I would have one town with a double-ended siding where a local might be made up with cars dropped off from a through freight. I would try to "do it well" for that one location, even if it took almost half the layout. Then I would fit in perhaps one additional "town" that might be only a single industrial spur or perhaps a freight house track behind a small depot. That's "1 and a half" visible towns plus hidden or disguised/inconspicuous staging. For single-track, it might be a twice-around loop for a layout this size. Double-track pretty much limits it to single track. Another possibility-- double track main, with about half of the main hidden in staging. Well-modeled town trackage that represents junction of double-track mainline with single-track branch. Let the branch run as single track in front of the hidden staging to a mine or a small end-point. Just my prejudices. See my N-scale 3x7 East Texas forest Santa Fe layout at (overview) http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/aad.jpg (trackplan) http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/acj.jpg See my planned "Island Seaport" based on Santa Fe Galveston at http://www.trainboard.com/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/33/t/000725.html#000000 about same size as your layout but in N scale.
QUOTE: Originally posted by leeferr You probably need a runaround in the yard at the top also, otherwise, have fun. Mike
QUOTE: Originally posted by NZRMac For some strange reason this forum won't allow portrait pic to enlarge. I like your plan, I thought some runaround tracks might be useful though. For instance the lower right yards, if you pull in forwards your loco is stuck. A turnout added in one end would allow you to uncouple and runaround your train and switch it from there. Just a thought, Ken.