Im considering this plan for the new layout. Id probably add a feet on the second yard track to make it even with the first one but basuicly leave it as is. As anyone ever built it or studied it? id like to get any feedback on operation possibilties or possible problem i could encounter/limitations? thanks
Looks like an interesting track plan. I bought my first layout from Trainsonly.com for a very reasonable price. I found the layout for $496.77. Below is a link to the plan at the trainsonly site.
Bill
That is actually a variation of the out-and-back plan I recommended for your space on the layouts forum. http://www.trains.com/TRC/CS/forums/1101523/ShowPost.aspx
The operation is great since one can make up a train in the yard. Take it out and run loops (or figure eights) as long as desired before going through the reverser and bringing it back to terminate the yard. Also one can leave a train looping (or running by a second operator) while another is being broken down or made up.
On this particular plan:
- I believe I would ditch the mainline track year the yard that sort of goes around the round house, and just reconfigure a bit to have a figure-8 as the man line running track. That will also give the yard a bit more scenic breathing space - which as I recall was one of your high priority items. That will also remove one of the reversing loop sections of track.
- I don’t understand the really long track that makes the inside loop on the right hand side and then just terminates. I think I would carry that through for a double track main, or make a more interesting industrial area there.
- I think the yard can be greatly improved. What follows is just one suggestion of several possibilities — As shown the locomotive excape track consumes the longest and best yard track. I would add a ladder bypass and move the arrival track to be closest to the round house. Yes that would put a kink in it but it would allow a switcher to sit on the ladder and then get behind the train to pull it free from the road loco. As the switc
Does the plan make essentially two reverse loops? I was just wondering what kind of pain it would be to know when you have made the reverse or if your still making the loop. Not that it would make a huge mental loop to keep track of but it looks as if you could easily forget while running and then hit the reverse without remembering (especially on the right side). Would this be a bigger or lesser problem in DCC or DC?
hey texas zepher,
i read carefully both your posts. You have some good points. there are some things that slightly bother me about the track plan.
1- its not all completly reachable easily and no real provision for pop up either. if a train derails in the back youre pretty much screwed
2-really no hidden staging. I like the nice long yard for storing cars and making and breaking trains but i still have a hard time with visible staging. I would like to have my passenger train fully hidden from view until it comes out.
3- the curves are a bit too tight. the 18in. on the inside loop are going to be tight any way you look at it.
On the bright side, you can get some nice mainline running and you get easily built in reversing loop…
guess im not 100% sure yet… choosing a track plan is hard and require lots of thinking… thats a major commitement, unlike marriage 
“Manufacturer”-drawn plans are usually intended for beginners and won’t include amenities such as hidden staging. That doesn’t mean you can’t add it yourself.
As for the access issue, this is one of the major failings of the big ol’ table-top design: you need access to at least 3 sides, preferably four, for them to be workable. That means they have to go in the middle of a room, like a big old 4x8.
So your 4 foot space is against a wall? Ouch that really limits the options. But the center of either part of the figure 8 could be reconfigured for a pop up.
A branch to a lower level for staging shouldn’t be too hard to add to this plan. I would make it “facing” the surface yard, so a train would not have to run through the reversing section to go from one to the other but but no reall big deal. Oooh, I just thought of something. That long spur that goes around the inside of the “8” on the right hand side. That could actually be the track going down to staging!
The curse of the 4x8. Of course extending this plan 4 more feet would allow the curve on the left side to be 22". Cut out the branch to staging from there, and Change the furtherst curve on the right hand side to be 22" with a cruved turnout, THEN the passenger could run from staging to the yard on all big(ger) curves.
Some of the Atlas track plans can be complicated enough, but seem to not allow for broader curves and I always figured it was just what you could do with what they gave you. After all the idea is to make sure its in synch with their particular products, though they are a large manufacturer of track. I actually liked layout N9, but chose my own design ultimately. Ironically this is the one Tony Koester used in one of the MRP series to show how you can do more with these layouts with a little expansion. Just my personal opinion here, not a huge fan of figure 8s. Maybe on a really large layout but on a smaller scale it just doesn’t work for me.
Just ran across this post, lol. I’ve been trying to change this layout to an n scale layout. I have changed it a number of times and the same question always comes up. The grade I’m told is too steep for n scale ?
I seriously doubt it. If the scale was changed so that you tried to fit a 4x12 into 2x6 then maybe it would be a little steeper, but not by much. Certainly not enough to make more than 1-2 cars difference in train length. If you don’t squish the size so much (like doing this layout in 3x8) than any grades will be more gentle in N-scale.
BUT - Having said that in a general sense. Specifically speaking, I don’t think there are any grades in this HO version. I interpreted all of those as crossings not bridges. Hence the comment the grades might not work if one tried to make them into a bridge.