I’ve just got permission from my other half to expand my model layout in the garage - the only conditions are that we still have space to store and access the car, and access to a door in the far left corner.
With that in mind, I’ve come up with the following design. This will be running along the left side of the garage, and be linked by a swing bridge to my existing, narrow-gauge mine layout. The scenario is that this is the town of Bradford Junction, at the junction of the spur track to the A.N. Bradford Mine with a dual-gauge branchline of the D&RGW in Colorado during 1928.
Owing to limited space, I’ve had to fold the layout back on itself. The walkway between the front of the layout and the cassette is 42", which I think should be wide enough for me. The main thing I’m worried about is the sharing of the team track with the stock yard - I figure it will need careful planning for switching, but it strikes me as being a bit unrealistic.
The trains running over this will be both standard and narrow gauge, but mostly narrow - I’ve only got one standard gauge loco, and it’s acually slightly shorter than the narrow-gauge K-27 model.
Please, let me know what you think.
Cheers,
tbdanny
EDIT: Forgot to mention, curves are 22" minimum, turnouts are #4 except for the red one, which is #6.
First thing that jumps out is that the “staging cassette” on the right end of the layout will have to be used as the tail track to make any runaround moves or to switch any industries. So I’m thinking that cassette will have to be at least a standard gauge engine consist and 3 or 4 cars long to switch the industries.
If you flipped the entire roundhouse, industry portion of the layout (so they all broke off to the right instead of the left), you could use the natural tail to the left staging cassette.
I don’t think it’s at all unrealistic for the stockpens to share the team track - it will add some challenge to the switching and such arrangements are very common on the prototype.
What jumps out at me is that you have 4 square feet of nothing in the upper left hand corner. Were it me, i would add a 3 stall roundhouse as well as a branch off of the team track for a ash pit, coal bunker and other engine services. Move the turntable a foot to the left and possibly move the rest of the connections so that you have a straight connection from the swingarm to the teamtrack.
Congrats on getting the concessions from your wife, dont forget to ask for her advice. I have noticed that women have a nack for scenery, especially once they understand your vision.
I agree. The stock cars are not going to be loaded unless they are ready to go, so shifting some empty stock cars around when you need to get into the team track is no big deal.
Thanks for the advice. I’ve revised the track plan as shown below.
The main reason I want to keep the turntable on the left is that it’s mainly to be used for turning locomotives coming off the narrow-gauge spur on the right. What will happen, more or less, is that the narrow-gauge trains will back out of the mine, leave their consist on the mainline outside the depot, then head down to the turntable if they’re heading east, before returning and switching the town. Westbound trains will just run around before leaving.
Wolfgang, I wasn’t quite sure what you meant by ‘shifting the yard throat into the curve’ - did you mean stretching the layout slightly, or using a curved turnout to start it off?
Another possibility: substitute a double-slip for the RH turnout to the fuel dealer (and move it “up” a bit) and provide a separate spur to the left off the double-slip for the stock pen.
it would have been better if you had included a plan of your garage as well. I still do not understand the placement of the various parts of your layout. The most important change seems to be the yard lead, switching is from the west now. Nor do I know if the rather large unsceniced platform can be used as well.
Look at the switch at the left, no S-curve anymore and space enough for #6 switches.
BTW is what you call a team track in your last design in reality a trans-loading facility between the narrow and standard gauge railroads?
The idea of a double-slip switch is best ignored. A real railroad wouldn’t use one in a small-town setting. A DSS in inappropriate settings is a lazy modeler’s misstep that brands his layout as a set-up and not a satisfactory representation of a railroad.
Railroads use double-slip switches where space is at a premium. For instance, yard throats could be one of those places. Yes, probably more common in a passenger terminal; but it is the owners option and/or choice to use such a critter to increase operational capabilities in the space required.
Note that double-crossovers carry the same issues - when space is at a premium, they are used.
Model railroaders and associated layouts are ( mostly ) space limited. A single or double slip switch adds to the operational capability as does a double crossover. I have a medium sized layout and have used multiple double-slip’s on both ends of the classification yard. They made it much much easier to have access to switch lead, A/D tracks and ladders from the double main line. Note that I don’t have double crossovers as I decided that I liked the looks of two single crossovers end to end - they take up almost 4 feet with #6’s, but in those locations … it works for me.
Good boy! Prototype railroads much prefer two single-crossovers to one double-crossover. Who prefers an expensive and maintenance-prone crossing anyway?
A friend designed a track plan for me. I loved the overall concept but it took me many hours to eliminate all the lap turnouts (three-way, double-slips, etc.) and double-crossovers. Such specialty trackwork was contrary to the intended rural/small-town setting.
If one likes complex turnouts in a rural setting, employ dual-gauge trackage.
Good boy! Prototype railroads much prefer two single-crossovers to one double-crossover. Who prefers an expensive and maintenance-prone crossing anyway?
A friend designed a track plan for me. I loved the overall concept but it took me many hours to eliminate all the lap turnouts (three-way, double-slips, etc.) and double-crossovers. Such specialty trackwork was contrary to the intended rural/small-town setting.
If one likes complex turnouts in a rural setting, employ dual-gauge trackage.
Again, thanks for all the advice. I wasn’t planning to go with the double-slip idea, but I contacted Railway Engineering to see if a dual-gauge double-slip could actually be produced, just out of curiousity. The advice I received was that it would be a maintenance nightmare and I’d be better off using toe-to-toe turnouts.
Paulus Jas, thanks for your plans as well. I’ve used some elements in the plan below, specifically the use of #6 turnouts and the addition of the transloading facility. I’d still like to keep switching from the west, and the elimination of the S-curve into the passing siding. There’s currently about 60" of track between the heel of the points into the team track and the #6 on the left, which will allow me to fit a full train in there with enough clearance for runaround moves.
I would like to fit the turntable into the square foot next to the #6 leading into the current position, but I’m a bit stumped on how to do this while maintaining the 60" of clearance along the front of the passing siding.
Move the LH turnout that forms the stock pen etc. spurs one track left, and replace it with a #6RH. The straight section of the turnout w/b the spur and the curved section w/b the passing siding. This would eliminate the S curve.
Connect the curved portion of a #6LH turnout, facing west, to the curved portion of the relocated stock pens etc. turnout (now a RH), and cross the straight part over the new stock pen spur into the turntable. The look of the turntable spur w/b much like how you drew it in your 1st plan.
I don’t think these changes will impact the 60" clearence issue you’ve described.
This would result in the diverging tracks of the turnouts becoming the main or siding, which is not ideal, but I don’t think the layout has enough length to avoid that completely.
Where the turntable turnout is now, I would install a stream and bridge to kind of give the layout a topographical barrier. This barrier justifies the railroad having to tighten up its track arrangement plan, having to fit things into a tight space, if that makes sense.
I apologise - I’ve just realised that the sentence above was a bit ambiguous. What I meant was fitting the turntable next to the #6 leading into the current turntable position - the position of the red turntable below:
Yes, that is a stumper. Obviously, you could add a triangle to your benchwork and have the turnout originate mid-siding, but you would lose your 60 inch span. Is that much clearance that important for engine servicing? I suppose it is if you plan on having a train parked there.
Another thought w/b to relocate the turntable to the void that’s between the team track and swing bridge track. You could access it by a switch back off of the team track. If you continued the team track a foot or so beyond the depot, any car parked there should not interefere with the clearance needed for an engine to switch to and from the turntable.
That would open up the left side of the layout totally for a town scene and other scenic features.
I would still move the turnout that leaves the main line for the stock pen,etc., to the left and replace it w/a RH. It’ll give you longer spurs as well. I think the freight depot/transload area could benefit from the added length.
Paul - Yes, that is what I was thinking for the most part. But, as you can see, I misread the OP’s concerns anyway.
