I’ve been designing my next layout, but can’t seem to decide between two competing plans that I’ve put together. Could use some help, rock throwing, suggestions, etc.
The dimensions for the layout are 144"W x 36"D. There is also a 12" x 36" detachable shelf that was originally meant to act as a small staging yard (now I’m not so sure). I plan to use a small step stool to deal with the fact that the layout is 30" deep in most areas (the 36" deep sections will be accessible from more than one side). These dimensions cannot be made larger. The scale is N.
The layout is meant to show a branch operation that takes either coal or lumber from a private short line and have its material delivered to industries which then produce various products, which are picked up by the PRR. The branch operation uses a leased two truck Shay. The PRR motive power is 2 Decopods, a “borrowed” C&O Mike, and various diesels (NW2, RS1, RS3, H-16-44, SD-9, FA2, and the like). There is occasional passenger service.
The layout is planned to be one “framework” level with risers. That is, no independent double-deck type designs. I was originally thinking a helix in the upper right corner would exit to an upper section along the back (made of foam) that would snake from right to left and represent the logging part of the operation. But the more I think about it the less I like the idea of so much of the visible operating area being taken up by a helix. I might be inclined to consider a lower level staging area.
The first plan is not yet complete, but you can see it is a twice-around with a reverse loop. You can also see that I initially put the yard on the shelf, but I’m planning on moving it to the central triangle area because the approach curves into the yard are too sharp. The thought is to use the shelf for the branch activity. The space on the left may be just big enough for a 9" turnt
Model Rail Cast covered this topic two weeks ago. They talk about using excel to weight your givens and druthers to pick the plan that’s best for you. They use their matrices to decide between prototypes, but you could just as easily put in the specific layout elements that differ between the plans. Give it a listen ( http://modelrailcast.com/MrcBlog/Show54.asp ).
Both designs have yards that have issues. #1 the long curves will waste space and cut the capacity of the yard in half. #2 half of the yard is reached by a switchback and so will be way less functional than any other possible designs. I would use the basic layout of #1 and flip the yard to the left instead of to the right and then put the turntable on the peninsula. A big turntable is 130 ft which is only 10" in diameter in N scale so it should fit on the peninsula with no problem.
#1 has a better industrial area also. I would put a passing siding by the industrial area.
I would add a pair of sidings to the siding on the lower level on the right end of the layout, to be used as hidden staging.
Dave, I greatly appreciate the input. Yeah, the yard curves were a real problem for me in #1. Your suggestion to move the shelf is a good one, but the land owner will not let me extend the railroad in that direction. [:(] Honestly, though, she’s got a point. However, I’ve been reworking the #1 plan with a yard within that center triangle area. I plan to post it this evening after a bit of cleanup.
I’ll have to see if I can fit in hidden sidings there without reducing the radii of the mainline trackage. I’m trying to keep the trackwork 2" in from the edges.
I see what you mean about a good part of the yard in #2 being accessible only through the yard lead. I’ll have to remember not to do that in plan #1.
Let’s start with embedding pics. All digital photos (or scanned diagrams, must first be transferred to a Host eg. Photobucket.com. Give the Album and each photo, or scanned image a Title. Below each photo will be four options. Click on the desired photo and then on the bottom “IMG” option, and the word " Copied" will momentarily appear. Or, if this is a Thumbnail photo, there will be a small square and a rectangle below it. Click on the square and then on the URL rectangle below. There will be a blue border around the desired photo.Go to Edit and click on Copy. Now go to the Trains.com Forum,of your choice, and either create your own Thread, or click on Reply to some other Thread. After inserting any desired Text, click on Enter to move to free space below. Now all you have to do is click on “ctrlV” and the lengthy code for the image will appear. Scroll down to Post, and click on Post. Your Text and Photo will “soon” appear at the end of the Thread. If you desire to “change” or “Delete” your Reply, just click on Edit, and Backspace over the Text or Photo code, that you wish to Delete, or retype a typo. Don’t forget to click on Post. Don’t be surprised if your original Post appears as you return to the Forum. The changes have been made!
My directions for adding your unique photo as an AVATAR are given on either the first or second page of this Forum.
As to the two versions of your proposed layout. They are both good. The first one has a more adequate “yard”. Instead of a ladder of three separate switches, one can use a “triple switch” which releases a lot of trackage to the yard. I like “double-slip switches” to enable the switcher to escape from the yard after dragging in freight cars. It allows the switcher to get behind the cars to push them in. Check the incline in the right peninsula yard, if you intend an overpass. Either of the proposed layouts are excellent! Bob Hahn
Thanks Bob. I actually looked up the embedding instructions before I did the first post, but it seems like it was written for specific image servers. What happens if, as in my case, I have them posted on my Verizon home page? Is there some way to just use the direct url and get the same thing to happen? Is there a size limit for the original pic, in order to be able to have it show up as an embedded?
I should have mentioned I’m using Atlas Code 55. I would otherwise have considered triples and double slips. I’m actually trying to find my remaining Code 70 Shinohara stuff from years ago. I had a number of triple turnouts, and single and double slips. Things of beauty. Kind of frustrated with Atlas taking their good old time coming up with these turnout solutions for Code 55. If I find the Shinoharas I may figure how to use them in this planning effort.
From the way you had to post the links to the images, I don’t think the Verizon web server will allow a direct link to the jpg files. You may be stuck with posting those as links. I have my web site on an outside host, not my ISP’s free space, so I can do pretty much what I like as long as I don;t go over my bandwidth limit (which is highly unlikely). Only costs me $1/mo for the service, too.
Seems to work just fine to post images from verizon, if you actually post the link directly to the picture, instead of posting a URL leading to some program that makes a web page containing a picture instead.
Old scout trick to find the URL of a picture contained in a web page: right click on image, look at properties.
Great! [bow] Thanks Stein. I’ve updated my original post.
Here’s Layout 1 after tonight’s planning update. Viewers will note I did move the yard to the center and the branch to the shelf. The single track on the left edge of the shelf is the yard lead. I also added some hidden staging to the back-right hidden track, kind of along the lines of Dave’s suggestion. The long track to the TT will contain the diesel and steam service items.
In the yard there are two locomotive escape tracks. Each one wastes an entire length of track. Move those two tracks to be adjacent to each other so that one escape services both. OR with the position of the turn table, just connect the A/D tracks directly to the turntable and use it for the escape.
The yard drill track shares two turnouts with the large radius main line trackage. I would try to rework it so that the yard could be worked without sharing with the mainline.
There is no run-around track in the industrial area.
I think the industrial area on the peninsula could be made more interesting.
I think the two curved industry tracks north of the turntable make it look crowded, will be difficult to scenic (curved loading docks?), and troublesome to operate. It might be more interesting to move the turntable a little to the north and add service tracks for the loco facilities. A place to spot the hoppers bringing in coal, sand, a place for a tank car bringing in oil, a place for box, flat, and gondolas cars bringing in parts and supplies, a place for a gondola or a hopper to take out the ashes.
Hi, I know what you feel like - I am torn between 4 diffrent plans for my layout “in being” and cannot make up my mind, which way to go!
I took a clos look at both plans, and aside from commenting on operational issues, I would like to input my 2 cents worth on this:
Both plans have a lot of track per square inch and leave little room for structures, streets, scenery, which provide the spice to our layouts. You will find that sometimes less is more…
The second plan looks a lot more “elegant” to me, not as “square” as the first one. Sweeping curves and avoiding track paralleling the layout´s sides add to that realistic look we want to capture.
I love the suggestions from all of us, as to how to improve your layout design. Have you considered putting the roundhouse on the left side. It would free-up more room for yard tracks and allow for more “drill track”, so that you don’t tie-up the mainline with your switching operations. I would like to see one or two long “run-arounds”, but the layout is tending to be too “busy” with track and no room for structures. It is not quite clear as to which of the tracks are overpasses, from your diagram.I assume that you have allowed for a maximum of 2-3% incline. Bob Hahn
TZ, thanks for providing so much to think about. About the escape tracks - agreed. It felt wasteful when I was putting them in; I’ll have to revise that.
Woops! The placement of the yard drill track merge was just a mistake. I thought I had joined it to that section just under where it seems to cross over that mainline E-W run (even though it doesn’t really “cross-over”, I just haven’t put in the elevations yet). Consider it fixed.
Your two comments on the shelf industrial area are well taken. Just not sure what to do about that section yet. I’m afraid with the drill track in place on that shelf I may have narrowed my options for interesting trackage for that upper elevation branch industry.
Ulrich, I’ll admit that there’s a bit of track in both these designs. The funny part is that I started with the idea of a setting in Northwest or Southwest Pennsylvania, which would suggest a more open, rugged environment. Both plans seem to have moved away from this. On the other hand, I know that in my house there is absolutely no additional room for a layout, so I’m stuck trying to balance space vs. operation. The same old story…
As much as I’ve been focusing on the first plan, I agree that the second has a more “elegant” look to it. I started reworking the yard area on that plan per some of the earlier comments. Perhaps it will be better when I post that update.
What I like also about that plan is that it has its industry trackage placed around the layout. If you count the big industrial area in the right-center as “one” location, there are six separate locations for industrial activity. On the first plan everything is more clustered - there are really only three distinct areas for industry. The big problem I have with the second plan is that I haven’t figured out how to add a reverse loop without destroying the fundamental design.
Bob, my brain is not working. For the TT, are you referring to the plan I posted at 6:01 PM, or Layout 2? I’m not sure how much further left I can put the TT in the revised Layout 1 plan! [swg]
Your assumption is correct about the elevations - haven’t put them in yet. It does make it a bit confusing.
I am considering your (and Ulrich’s) comments about these plans maybe being too track heavy. It’s a dilemma that I’ll have to resolve somehow.
I relly like the first of the two layouts. If a TT is one of your “druthers” one could be worked in either in the upper right corner, without engine facilities or else in triangle area in the lower section.Both plans are nice though. BILL
Ulrich, I like the “open” qualities of your first plan. I also like the way the industry tracks are set around the layout and the nice visual of the double track across that pass-thru. Were you thinking of placing a bridge structure there?
Of course, with the second choice you have a turntable ([tup]) and a twice-around plan, which opens up longer running times. I’m not sure, but if you don’t count passing tracks I think there may be a bit less yard storage in the second plan, however. They may be about the same. And of course, with the TT you can reverse locos.
Hey, if I could choose between your options I’d have figured out my own by now! [(-D]
