2nd layout plan any thoughts?

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
21

Looks like a promising start.

  1. If you really want to have 3 trains going at once you’ll need to modify the city area to not require the 3rd train to come out on the inner oval to go from the roundhouse lead to the industry lead.

  2. That switchback will be a pain to deal with since using the run around will foul both of the main tracks.

  3. Unless you’re in love with the roundhouse and turntable perhaps a 3 track yard could use that space (with yard ops being that 3rd train)? Or run a short branchline around one end of the layout to the country side. Let it serve a grain elevator or mine or ?

  4. Making the run around a bit longer will let you deal with longer trains.

  5. If sectional track is what you’re comfortable with, then by all means go ahead with it. But flex track will give you a lot more planning flexibility (and with fewer rail joints it should be a bit more reliable).

  6. The idea of making the backdrop/divider curved or offesting it seems like something to look further at (to me anyway). It might allow some more interesting scenic opportunities.

  7. Putting another cross over on the country side of the layout might allow for a bit more interesting operation.

Looks like you’re going to have fun with this one.

And don’t feel bad about the first layout not turning out the way you’d hoped. If we all waited until we had perfect track plans before building anything, nothing would ever get built.

When I had my 4x8 layout I made a bunch of ‘tiles’ by cutting 3/4" plastic I-beams into 1" long pieces. I labeled each piece with the name of an industry and stuck 'em in a small container. When I wanted to do freight switching I’d pull the freight train into town then pull tiles out of the container and set them on top of cars in the train. Then I’d deliver those cars to the industries the tiles said they should go to. If there was already a car at that industry I’d pick it up. Af

22

I used the Free Atlas program. I use different colors to identify the different sections of track.
I hate this program as I usually end up wasting 2 hrs swapping out sections and trying something else. it gets addicting and i hate that i spend so much time playing.

Kevin

23

Exactly. A ridge, even a low one, and some trees, bushes, etc. will produce a much more natural looking view block than a center board. And it doesn’t have to be a complete view block - just enough to make the structures on the other side less obvious, same as in real life.

24

[quote user=“BCSJ”]

Looks like a promising start.

1. If you really want to have 3 trains going at once you'll need to modify the city area to not require the 3rd train to come out on the inner oval to go from the roundhouse lead to the industry lead.

2. That switchback will be a pain to deal with since using the run around will foul both of the main tracks.

3. Unless you're in love with the roundhouse and turntable perhaps a 3 track yard could use that space (with yard ops being that 3rd train)?  Or run a short branchline around one end of the layout to the country side. Let it serve a grain elevator or mine or ?

4. Making the run around a bit longer will let you deal with longer trains.

5. If sectional track is what you're comfortable with, then by all means go ahead with it. But flex track will give you a lot more planning flexibility (and with fewer rail joints it should be a bit more reliable).

6. The idea of making the backdrop/divider curved or offesting it seems like something to look further at (to me anyway). It might allow some more interesting scenic opportunities.

7. Putting another cross over on the country side of the layout might allow for a bit more interesting operation. 

Looks like you're going to have fun with this one.

And don't feel bad about the first layout not turning out the way you'd hoped. If we all waited until we had perfect track plans before building anything, nothing would ever get built. 

When I had my 4x8 layout I made a bunch of 'tiles' by cutting 3/4" plastic I-beams into 1" long pieces. I labeled each piece with the name of an industry and stuck 'em in a small container. When I wanted to do freight switching I'd pull the freight train into town then pull tiles out o

25

o:
Politically astute, that’s what we model RRers are! [:)]

Hey, you could make the farm a pumpkin farm! Around here, these often put on a neat display around Hallowe’en, with displays, hayrides, haunted barns, and games for the kids. The scene before all that would be neat, too, with the fields full of bright orange pumpkins.

Here’s an example that’s about as far from here as you can get:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNX5lB7QVt8&NR=1

26

I don’t see the advantage of the double slips. They reduce the length of the runaround track and they’ll set you back $$$ (of course there are only 2 of 'em vs 4 other switches). I’d keep the original configuration.

Sounds like you’ve been thinking alot about the layout plan!

Good luck,

Charlie Comstock

27

What about the s curves that the use of the #4 turnouts creates?

there is an scurve when an engine goes from the outter loop to the inner one…but then lets say the engine continues on to the 24degree crossing, there is another turnout, the cars being pulled could still be on the outter loop. wont this “staircase stepping” design cause some possible problems? that was the real advantage I saw with using the double slips. I know they are more $, I didnt like that part, but if it made the trains run more dependable then I would do it.

Kevin

28

Well, those S curves won’t do full lenth passenger equipment any good. But then full length passenger equipment probably won’t be too happy on the 22" radius curves let alone the 18" radius curves. And using the double slips doesn’t eliminate this problem, all crossovers have an S-curve built in as you go from one parallel track to the next.

To make this nicer you could go to #6 turnouts for the crossover. They may not fit entiredly well in front of the town. How about moving one crossover to the country side of the layout?

Perhaps you could fit a run around track into the town area itself off the mainlines?

As long as you’re running smallish locos (4 axle diesels or 2-8-0 or smaller steam) and 50’ or shorter cars the #4 cross overs, while not ideal should work ok. But you can test this out before building the layout by tacking a couple of switches together in a cross over configuration adding some track to the ends of the switches, add some power with clip leads, and test it out with what you’ve got.

Although it may be a bit out of your comfort zone, if you were to forsake the sectional track for flex track it would allow you to be more flexible in your track planning. Including using #6 turnouts for cross overs.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Charlie Comstock

29

Charlie -

the passenger service is made of the following:(and this is HO, I dont think it was ever mentioned)

modern passenger service - Amtrak AMD 103 (4wheel trucks 9" total length) with three matched passenger cars each being about 9" long each, 4 wheel trucks. By the time this layout is built there will be a second AMD 103, but a dummy to trail behind the second passenger car, the 3rd passenger car will be left out to dry as it was a observation.

Steam passenger service - my wife’s K4 pacific 4-6-2 with three 40’ passenger cars

I know the AMD will work on the 22 radi, I have it running right now on 18" radi. the K4 runs on the current layout with 18" as well. that engine only derails on two different snap switches, and thus is the reason why I will not use snap switches in the new layout. I used 22 in this layout just to make it look better, no other reason, i originally designed this to have 18 on the outside and a mix of 18 and 15 on the inside, that got it to fit on a 4x8.

Freight service will consist of 1 GP38 and will haul a vari of different box cars. 40’ mostly, I do have 1 50’ flat car that nicholas uses. but that navigates the current 18" layout with ease already so no worries there. other freight will be handled by my 0-8-0 and my small 0-6-0 these will haul the stones and logs, 3 loads and a stub caboose only.

So short trains, and short cars, the only exception is the Amtrak and my wife’s K4. the K4 does not get run often though.

I just scored 5 peco #4’s and one #4 right for $52 so the double slips are not going to make the cut.

so after the sections arrive, I will put out a test track using the #4’s and a 24 degree crossing and see how things run.

Flex track, well, i have some, well, see…maybe I will do some test runs and see how they come out. I am going to have to take the current layout down before

30

I can’t speak for the others, but I didn’t necessarily mean take out the switchback - I just meant the double switchback.

31

I guess I dont understand what you meant then. I thought the switchback that i had over near the two factories was what you were referring to. double switchback? what were you referring to?
Kevin

32

A switchback is where a locomotive has to pull a train into one siding and then back up to get into another siding. In your original plan a train had to pull left into the first sticks-&-stones siding, then backup to the right where the tower is (switchback 1), then had to pull left again into the factory siding (switchback 2).

33

Right, then we were talking about the same thing.

current design:

I tested out the right hand side of the stair climbing turnouts. every engine and car I sent through it seemed to go just fine. So the double slips are not needed. good thing, that was going to run me over $100, I got all the #4’s I needed for $52. I just need to get the peco 24 degree crossing now. and then wait till I can start taring down the old layout.

Kevin

34

o:

That’s the way to do it. If you can save days of analysis by fifteen minutes of testing, test away. Do be sure to run some trains backward through the crossovers, too, because that’s the real test. The slack and pushing emphasizes any tendency to derail.

35

Backwards, right, I did that, but with the engine only, it worked, but I will need to do it with cars linked up. on the current layout, derailures occur with the engines, well, maggies really, as she is the only one with an engine with a leading truck. that truck does not like the atlas snap switches we have. cars would derail only when the switches werent set right as cars went through.

Kevin

36

o:
Lead trucks can be a PITA. Which K4 is that? Spectrum, Bowser, etc? Where does it derail? Does it pick at facing points, or does it climb out of the frog, or what?

37

its a Spectrum K4.

it does it all, picks at the facing points, and climbs out of the frog, but on only 2 of my snap switches. I dont think its the engine, as it did none of that behavior on the peco’s. I think the snap switches are faulty.

not a big deal as I will not use any snap switches ever again in a layout., well…never say never right?

Kevin

38

It has possibilites. The view block down the center is a good idea. It gives a back drop and blocks the view across the table. If you can see the tracks and trains going down one side and back up the other, it is hard not to think of a model train running round a table. With the view block, you get two scenes, into which the train enters and leaves. Much more convincing. Plus the back drop allows good photographs of your trains and layout, from eye level, without unprototypical things like floor lamps and walls showing in the photo.

The double track main will allow you and your son to run a train apiece round the main line. Good feature. You have a fair number of spur tracks to serve industries, and allow a peddler freight to drop off and pick up cars. Can you make the spurs any longer? A longer spur can hold more cars, and you will find your cars expand to fill track available.

Can you work in a long siding? Long enough to stash an entire ready to go train? This would allow you to change the train you have running on the main line. You halt the running train, bring the new train onto the main from the siding, and run the old train onto the siding. or a siding for the station, allowing your passenger train to stop, load/unload passengers and baggage while the frieghts roar thru on t he main line?

Condsider replacing some of the stores in the town with rail served businesses. A lumber yard, a coal dealer, an oil dealer, a saw mill, or the takes-any-kind-of-car team track.

Consider having your road cross the main line. This lets you install grade crossing protection, a pair of gates that lower, with red flashers on the gate, backed up with a pair of crossbucks, also flashing red. The crossing protection can put on a very attention catching show.

Have you read “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” by John Armstrong?

Good luck.

39

David star-

I dont think I can make the spurs any longer. plus if i keep them this length, then we can fill them with what we have, I know that if I make it longer and can fill it with more cars, then more cars will be bought, I dont need to buy more, nor do I want to.

Work in a long siding…one for a whole train…I didnt consider this. If i went to a full 5’ deep, I would have room for one. Its a thought I will ponder. thanks for the idea. as it stands now, the freight runs on the inner circle, so when the passenger train is stopped, the freight can continue, that is as long as the passengers are not boarding on the city side, if so, the freight must stop as the people need to cross the freight tracks to get to the passenger cars. I am not too worried on this as this is exactly what happens in Claremont, NH. the freight waits for the amtrak to stop and pick up people and the people walk across the tracks the freight engine is waiting on.

in the plan, yes, all the buildings are makred store. thats my lazyness coming through. they wont all be stores. they will be buildings that I find interest me and nicholas…I just labled them all store and I used the same building from the library too. Kims house I think it was, from Atlas.

I tried to get the crossing gates, with flashing lights and automatic lowering. when my wife saw the price for the whole set up, she didnt like it. so even if we have the road cross, there wont be any such crossing gates. the road crosses over the tracks to create the scene separation.

I have not read track planning for realistic operation.

Thanks for the relection though some very good points.

Kevin

40

Looks pretty good. Is there any way to add a siding or two on the outer track? A small narrow extention for a interchange/fiddle yard would be great if you could add it to the outer loop so it attaches on an end of the table or forms an L.