You’ll notice that I am actually listening somewhat to you guys. I also believe I can work out some better spacing and straighten the track a little better with real track that with the Atlas program.
To remind you of the layout function–mostly to get the family involved in a project. Artistic (scenery) is very important. Having my 7 year-old able to run loops all over the place is important. Least important is that I get somewhere to play and learn about switching cars. The real yard layout is phase 2. This area will probably relagated to a few passenger cars.
There will be a logging mill/camp on the layout. I forgot who asked about industry.
The yard in the track plan doesn’t match the yard in the schematic. You have a whole bunch of switches but I don’t see a lot of what is in the schematic. What is the short one car long runaround inside the other runaround? Its labeled “yard lead” but functionally its not. For example the A/D track. There isn’t a long track without a switch in the middle of it. Have you looked at putting the class tracks inside the balloon loop?
Start with a good schematic, put down your minumum lengths of the tracks and then configure that to fit on your layout. You could probably save about 4 or 5 switches by sticking to the schematic.
That is not a schematic, rather an ideal layout suggested as a guide. It is from The Ten Commandments of Model Railroad Yard Design by Craig Bisgeier http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html
This is my attempt to use as many of these principles as I can into the “larger picture” layout.
The details are hard to make out but it looks like there is a “reverse loop” (track that circles back onto itself) in your yard. Yes? If there is then that will require you to wire that portion of track very specifically - whether you run DC or DCC. With any reverse loop, the polarity of the track has to be switched or “reversed” in order for the train to cross back over that portion of trackage that it just passed over in the opposite direction. Something to keep in mind…
Thanks. I actually have 4 reverse loops in this layout. I have a lot to learn with just the design phase. Tricky wiring doesn’t scare me, (I’ve done a little computer programming and believe it or not there are a lot of similarities.) But on the other hand I don’t want iot make things too tricky to be hard to operate. It has to be simple for my son.
To keep it simple for a 7 year old, get rid of the reverse loop by (in) the yard. Put the whole yard inside the main line loop and use a cross over to the right of the yard to make the reverse loop. Many real passenger terminals had trains back in from just such a configuration.
I’ve tried to visualize what you are saying, but I’m having a problem figuring it out.
I can get rid of the reverse loops, but it will take a lot complexity out of the set-up. I may do that though if it is really that hard for a 7-year-old to “get” . He’s pretty bright though.
Here’s another argument for going with DCC. With DC there will be switches that you’ll have to throw manually (in order to reverse the polarity) EVERYTIME you use a reverse loop. From what I understand about DCC, the reversing can be automated so that it will automatically reverse the polarity FOR you inside the neutral track. No throwing switches…No reversing loops to keep track of…Just switching your trains and rolling stock back and forth on top of your layout.
If throwing the polarity reverse switch gets more than the occasional use, it may grow old after awhile - for BOTH you and your son. Even if your son didn’t have autism, I think that an arrangement like the one you have using DC might be challenging and frustrating for a 7-year old. 7-year old? Shoot! It gives me a headache just thinking about it…
If I have to switch it every time, then I’m already tired of it too. I’m pretty sold on DCC. But I’ll have think about the design a little more. I have a couple weeks before construction can really start. Probably I’ll have 15 new designs before I start laying risers.
Nothing wrong with that. I’ve been designing and redesigning my layout for the past two years! By the way, what software are you using for your designs? Is it the Atlas RTS?
Actually you can add words right in RTS. There’s a “T”(ext) button on the second line of function buttons. (Right in the middle) Check my link below. It’s spartan but definitely ledgible.
I actually save my drawing as a .bmp file then open it in MS Paintbrush. I can then save it in Paintbrush as a .jpg file, which I upload onto the Rail Images website. Fairly easy and painless.
As far as software, I’m still using the RTS. Most of the guys like either CadRail or 3DPlanIt. Both should be downloadable as demos. RailCAD is also one that looks promising.
That looks much more like an interchange than a yard (constructive critisism ) I figure 5 feet for each track in the yard so a train can fit. Once I get mine up and running, yard track is going to be 11 feet I hope. Switches cost a lot too, and even cheap ones add up fast. Happy railroading, green signals ahead!
Morgan
About reverse loops: You really don’t need more than one reverse loop on a layout that size–while the tendency of any new layout designer is to make a plan that looks more appropriately scenicked with meatballs and marinara sauce than mountains and trees, simplicity can pay off in the long run.
With ANY reversing loop, your 7 year old would have to remember to reverse the polarity EVERY time the train enters the loop.
If he forgets, and if the engine runs on DC, the train stops dead and won’t start until you turn off the powerpack, set the polarity right and restart.
If the engine runs on DCC, the train stops dead and won’t start until you turn off the powerpack, take the engine off and remove the body shell, replace the DCC chip you just fried, set the polarity right and restart.
About the track plan: The purpose of a yard lead is to allow a switcher to go back and forth in and out of the yard without fouling the main. What you have labeled as a “yard lead” isn’t accessible from the body tracks, so it is useless as a yard lead. On this “yard lead” you have a passing track so short that it is effectively useless, especially considering that it is inside another passing track.
It appears that your “yard” has three tracks, but one of them is inaccessible from the other two, making the yard that much harder to use. Incidentally, your actual yard lead is the piece of track to the right of what you have marked as a “yard lead.”
Sweeping curves are nice for mountain scenery, but for yards think STRAIGHT LINES.
It should have be labeled A/D Track. However, if I eliminate the reverse loops, then I don’t have to worry about the cross-over and I can design a better yard. I’ll keep you posted.
Surely it’s the wheels of the loco which shorts the track across a isolated section not the chip inside the DCC decoder!!! I’ve done it accidentally and my loco if fine the DCC controller just flashes off. My 2 cents!!
NZRMac: Maybe I’m just going off secondary information, but from what I have heard one issue with DCC is that a short-circuit can very easily fry a DCC controller. If there is now better shorting protection I guess I didn’t know about it. (Someone declare a federal holiday, Jetrock admitted he didn’t know something!)
SpaceMouse: Okay, that chunk of track works as an A/D track. I assume that the little tiny runaround track there is for cabeese–as I mentioned it probably wouldn’t be long enough to be much use, and you can park cabeese on that yard track that is facing the opposite direction (assuming you don’t have some other purpose in mind for that.)
With that taken into consideration, if you are eliminating the crossover and move the switch for the uppermost yard track, you’ve got the basis of a good little yard.
Are you planning an engine service facility as well? Since you’re planning on running steam, a turntable and roundhouse would be appropriate.
