mbinsewi In one of threads, or, maybe a complete different one, the OP shows pictures of his building progress. Not sure which forum it's in. The layout is in a seperate yard shed type building, and the bench work was mostly done, if I remember right. Some of us were trying to convince him to finish the walls of the shed before he went any farther, as the walls were bare studs. Mike.
In one of threads, or, maybe a complete different one, the OP shows pictures of his building progress. Not sure which forum it's in.
The layout is in a seperate yard shed type building, and the bench work was mostly done, if I remember right.
Some of us were trying to convince him to finish the walls of the shed before he went any farther, as the walls were bare studs.
Mike.
Mike, you are correct sir. My layout building is actually a prebuilt 14'x20' lofted out building. I am still trying to get the walls finished up as far as insulation and drywall. Thanks buddy!
richhotrain I cannot recall if you are actually building this layout or merely drawing plans for it. If each square represents 1 foot, the proposed layout appears to be approximately 18' x 12'. Can you update us on the current status and size of this layout? Rich
I cannot recall if you are actually building this layout or merely drawing plans for it. If each square represents 1 foot, the proposed layout appears to be approximately 18' x 12'. Can you update us on the current status and size of this layout?
Rich
Rich, i have the benchwork completed as well as most of the walls finished, i also have the main line track work and grade laid and wired for DCC on the northern portion up to where the 2 tracks cross over each other on the eastern peninsula. I will update more with pictures as soon as i can. Thank you and i will post the revised track plan as soon as i get it reworked, been off work hurt and trying to get things ready to return to work this coming Monday.
My You Tube
Alton Junction
richhotrain If you want to keep your original track plan but the double slip no longer works for you in the upper portion of the layout, then scrap the double slip and add a second reversing section to the bottom portion of your layout. The two solid red lines in the following track diagram illustrate my suggested modification to your original track diagram. Rich
If you want to keep your original track plan but the double slip no longer works for you in the upper portion of the layout, then scrap the double slip and add a second reversing section to the bottom portion of your layout. The two solid red lines in the following track diagram illustrate my suggested modification to your original track diagram.
Rich, sorry about that, i guess i just misunderstood ya. Thanks for the illustration, i will rework my plan and post the updated one back here instead of adding to that other thread.....Thanks...:(
Wouldn't the turntable (upper left) be more appropriately located adjacent to the yard (at the bottom)...?
Alright everyone, here is my latest track re design/modification lol. I removed the big yard on the southern portion of the layout and just went the 5 track smaller yard and kind of simplified it. I also added both reverse sections on the southern portion of the layout, one on the western side and one on the eastern side of the yard. I also worked my double slip switch back into the plan but havent decided if i should keep it or delete it and maybe place it somewhere else. I really need some input on where to isolate the reverse sections as well as what i should use for an auto reverse module. Please keep the comments and suggestions coming....Thanks!
rrinker 4" is enough for HO, so would look good with N. If the grade started halfway around the loop behind the roundhouse, it would be less than a 2% grade - 2% woudl get you over 5" vertical clearance. You wouldn't have the reverse connection with the changing grade design. You have to decide which is more important to the type of layout you want to have. --Randy
4" is enough for HO, so would look good with N. If the grade started halfway around the loop behind the roundhouse, it would be less than a 2% grade - 2% woudl get you over 5" vertical clearance.
You wouldn't have the reverse connection with the changing grade design. You have to decide which is more important to the type of layout you want to have.
--Randy
Randy, i appreciate your information and suggestions buddy, i think i will actually do as you suggested and add the seperate elevation. One last thing, how is the easiest way to go about adding the seperate elevation? I have the incline sets and the risers but as far as adding either 2" or 4" elevation difference, would i just stack cut styrofoam sheeting in certain areas of my layout to accompolish this? Also, anyway you could roughly mark where i would add the elevation according to your suggestions, i am a newbie when it comes to elevations other than flat lol...Any and all of your help i greatly appreciate....Thank you Randy!
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker If you MUST have reverse loops, this: I still think it would be better with no reverse loops and a grade separtation. Uphill starts behinf the roundhouse and goes across the top, that 60 degree at grade crossing becomes one track crossing over the other. The summit maybe at the turnback curve of the penninsula, then down to the bottom section. There's enough distance I think to get the staging yard low enough so that the track across the bottom, instead of being in front of the staging tracks, could be at least partially over it, which makes room for wide aisles and/or widening the peninsula. For even more scenic interest, the line from the top going onto the penninsula could enter at the bottom and cross over the track that exists the peninsula and heads toward the bottom. That track would exit the poeninsula at the top, so like a big X. If you are building mostly to railfan trains running through scenery, that would give more opportunities. If you want more operations, keep the peninsula as is, and you can add industries to switch along both sides. --Randy
If you MUST have reverse loops, this:
I still think it would be better with no reverse loops and a grade separtation. Uphill starts behinf the roundhouse and goes across the top, that 60 degree at grade crossing becomes one track crossing over the other. The summit maybe at the turnback curve of the penninsula, then down to the bottom section. There's enough distance I think to get the staging yard low enough so that the track across the bottom, instead of being in front of the staging tracks, could be at least partially over it, which makes room for wide aisles and/or widening the peninsula. For even more scenic interest, the line from the top going onto the penninsula could enter at the bottom and cross over the track that exists the peninsula and heads toward the bottom. That track would exit the poeninsula at the top, so like a big X.
If you are building mostly to railfan trains running through scenery, that would give more opportunities. If you want more operations, keep the peninsula as is, and you can add industries to switch along both sides.
Randy, i see what you mean now...Thanks. As for the "Grade Seperation" you mention, about how many inches would you raise it if you were doing it? 2", maybe 4"? Thanks again sir!
rrinker The problem I have with the reverse loop with double slip one is there's no way to get to the engine facility from the yard, like in the second one, which is what I was talking about. Now, if there is still room to sneak in a diagonal track, then maybe you can have both - the two reverse sections PLUS the enginer terminal connected to the yard. And I think you could fit that in, the upper one would go the other way - upper left to lower right, from the siding to the right side of the yard. And the lower one would go from the right side of the staging yard up to the main just before the loop. Another reason to do away with the reverse loop connections is that in the second plan, you can have the track at the top, and that industry, at a higher elevation than the yard. Cross the tracks over one another with a grade separation at the base of the middle pennisula instead of a level crossing. Flop sides on the penninsula - so the track makes an X at the base, one track over the other. Go all the way to the bottom, so the loop at the lower right has the train go around clockwise, on a downgrade, with the staging under the main. Reducing that section's width, allowing for bigger aisles and/or making the penninsula wider to put more industries along it. --Randy
The problem I have with the reverse loop with double slip one is there's no way to get to the engine facility from the yard, like in the second one, which is what I was talking about. Now, if there is still room to sneak in a diagonal track, then maybe you can have both - the two reverse sections PLUS the enginer terminal connected to the yard.
And I think you could fit that in, the upper one would go the other way - upper left to lower right, from the siding to the right side of the yard. And the lower one would go from the right side of the staging yard up to the main just before the loop.
Another reason to do away with the reverse loop connections is that in the second plan, you can have the track at the top, and that industry, at a higher elevation than the yard. Cross the tracks over one another with a grade separation at the base of the middle pennisula instead of a level crossing. Flop sides on the penninsula - so the track makes an X at the base, one track over the other. Go all the way to the bottom, so the loop at the lower right has the train go around clockwise, on a downgrade, with the staging under the main. Reducing that section's width, allowing for bigger aisles and/or making the penninsula wider to put more industries along it.
Randy, any chance you could put my track plan in paint and roughly sketch what it is that you mean sir? I am having a hard time seeing exactly what you mean...Many thanks for your input!
I like Randy's idea. Reverse the reversing section at the top and create one from the top of the staging yard to the main(or to the inside loop if you want the section to be a bit longer).
Okay everyone, thanks for all the excellent input, suggestions and recommendations....Now, what is your alls final concensus....With the double slip and reverse loop like shown or without the reverse loop or just relocate the double slip lol....You guys have gotten me this far, lets hear your final decisions.....Thanks everyone!
BigDaddy Can you work your double slip somewhere in the red oval
Can you work your double slip somewhere in the red oval
Henry, i could try....Do you have any suggestions or ideas as to where or how sir? Thanks!
Also, here is the design as Rich suggested with the double slip removed as well as the industries being accessed from the upper passing siding as opposed to running from the lower yard tracks...Let me know what you guys think....Thanks!
RR_Mel Simple fix Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Mel, so simple but serves the purpose....Many thanks to you sir, i like it! So doing like you suggest here, would most of you guys agree that i should keep the upper reverse loop and add the bottom reverse loop as Mel has demonstrated? Just wondering what everyones opinions are now that the reverse loop actually has a purpose as well as another way to reverse too....Take a look at the design below now and give me your thoughts! Thanks
richhotrain rrinker At least with a wye you can go both ways. The way this was, you could go from ccw to cw, but not back again the other way. You could reverse back in the opposite direction with a crossover length of track in the lower loop as Mel demonstrated in an earlier reply. Rich.
rrinker At least with a wye you can go both ways. The way this was, you could go from ccw to cw, but not back again the other way.
At least with a wye you can go both ways. The way this was, you could go from ccw to cw, but not back again the other way.
You could reverse back in the opposite direction with a crossover length of track in the lower loop as Mel demonstrated in an earlier reply.
Rich.
Yes, either add the second one to go back, or take them both off. Not have one reverse loop connection which just seems like a bunch of contrived trackage to me with that double slip and the same track serving both the engine facility AND industry all the way down at the other end - ruins the illusion of distance.
If the yard at the bottom of the upper leg and the passing siding at the top of it are supposed to be two different places - they shouldn't be directly connected with a relatively short track.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Passenger cars? What are those? Even thr prototype had a way around turning the train - the Reading Crusader ran an observation car on each end, the loco just switched ends. The tender of the assigned locos had an extended shroud to hid the observation end on the one coupled to the loco.
Closer. Connect those industries to the right to the passing siding at the top, not off the yard.
rrinker No, that's not what I meant. WHat I meant was remove ALL of that track. Come off the other end of the yard to go over to the turntable area. ANd JUST to the turntable area. Heck, there's enough toom ro add another track to the yard as well. ANd then for the industry on the right, use a right-hand turnout off the passing siding a the top. Those tro tracks don;t need to cross. I don;t see what purpose that serves, other than to get a single direction reverse loop in there, which isn;t really needed. For out and back operation, you don;t need a reversing section, you can turn the train in the yard and go back the way you came, and for continuous running, you just go around the loop, so without ANY reversing section, you've got both out and back type operation as well as an option for continuous run to just watch the trains roll by. --Randy
No, that's not what I meant. WHat I meant was remove ALL of that track. Come off the other end of the yard to go over to the turntable area. ANd JUST to the turntable area. Heck, there's enough toom ro add another track to the yard as well. ANd then for the industry on the right, use a right-hand turnout off the passing siding a the top. Those tro tracks don;t need to cross. I don;t see what purpose that serves, other than to get a single direction reverse loop in there, which isn;t really needed. For out and back operation, you don;t need a reversing section, you can turn the train in the yard and go back the way you came, and for continuous running, you just go around the loop, so without ANY reversing section, you've got both out and back type operation as well as an option for continuous run to just watch the trains roll by.
Randy, i think i see what you mean. Take a look at te new design and tell me your thoughts, too much or??? Thanks!
Trainzman2435, you do have options. If you are reluctant to follow Randy's suggestion, then stick with your original idea of reversing the upper loop, using the Peco double slip as part of the reversing movements. The only limitation with that plan is that you can only reverse trains in a single direction. However, if you add a second reversing section to the bottom loop, you can then return the trains to the original direction. That would give you lots of flexibility.