This is an ongoing thread for my layout design… feel free to read all the way through if you’re interested in watching it develop, or just jump to the last page for the most recent updates.
Bill - 1/30/07
Page 3 has the “final” layout plans now.
Greetings!
I’m looking for comments and suggestions on my layout idea below. The dimensions are 8’ x 6’, 42" table width. Large, I know, but I’m 6’3" and I kept “far away” switches down to a minimum. I also plan to cut an access hole in the upper right loop for those difficult moments… that or put the whole table on casters so I can roll it around when needed.
Other pertinent info: N Scale, I kept the mainline(s) minimum radius at 13.75 when needed and 15 by preference. The bottom right turnout goes down to 11.25, the absolute minimum on the layout anywhere. (It’s a coal mine) Oh, and Atlas code 55. The turnouts along crossovers are all #7, and I think all the sidings are #5s.
The inner loop around the city is my arrival / departure track… passenger and freight depots will be on the top side of the loop. The middle industry I plan to have a brewery/bottling plant. I’m also thinking of adding a siding at the top of the loop for a grainery. I’ve not decided on the short siding near the inside of the “L” near the table edge.
I didn’t put gradients into the RTS software yet, but from the last layouts I’ve done and discarded, I feel confident they’ll all be between 2 and 3%.
The area is Indiana, Terre Haute (where I live) as inspiration, but more protolanced than prototyped. Rolling hills, lots of farmland, but I had to have tunnels too, despite the land not calling for it. (its a druther :))
The line(s) will be Pennsy and perhaps NYC. Time period mid 50’s (yeah, another ste
I like the general lay of the land a lot. It will give you a feel that you can do a lot to work with.
Now I’m going to make a couple assumptions. You want a good operational layout, so you can do your switching, run trains like a prototype, but still you see trains run and have the ability to as suggested above, get three trains going at one. However, I’m going to be blunt, the way you have it set up, will give a toy-like feel to the layout.
The good news is that a few simple alterations can solve the bulk of the problem. The two biggest problems you have are the inner loops in the city and near the mine. From a railroad standpoint, even a model railroad, they make no sense other than to make it so you can see your train again in the same scene. The trouble is I’m not sure I can describe how to make the changes very clearly. Take your time and try to work through my explanation.
Eliminate the inner loop near the mine. It is not needed.
Where the that inner loop crosses itself on your drawing, join the tracks and go straight around the back of the mountain. Make this a double main line that will end up at the top of your layout. This will mean altering the way your tracks cross each other. What was high will be low, etc. This track will have to cross under the outer mine loop. By doubling this track, you will be able to run trains in both directions and get the number of trains that can run up, if that is what you want.
The outer loop around the mine, coming from the mine, goes high over the inside mountain loop exposed, goes into a tunnel and emerges below itself and connects to the inner city loop and passenger station. I would probably double this main and have cross-overs before and after the station so that freighters can pass the station without a jam up. If you decide to go single with that line, make sure you have a passing siding at the station. If you want to make it really
I think I understood most of it, and I agreed that the previous one seemed a little toyish.
I didn’t have enough room in the upper right corner for an access hatch, so I went back to my cut off corner plan with removable backdrop instead. I’m not sure if this loop was the one you suggested removing, but it’s the one that had to go for convenience.
What do you think of this layout? I went more of a double-main look, but I’m leary about running two trains in opposite directions without a reversing loop. It always felt “wrong” somehow…
Please forgive the sloppy “scenery” this time, I didn’t have time to do a proper job with layers this morning before work.
You’re about dead on with what I want out of the layout. I want to continuously run at least 2 trains (the loop around the city was my A/D track, it just happens to be a big enough loop to run a 3rd train on too). I want one train to continuously be able to run around both outer main lines for a twice-around layout, and I do want a fairly realisticly operatable switching yard.
I’m not planning many, if any automatic switch machines, but mostly the Caboose Industries ground throws.
I’ve never done this before though, so how am I doing?
One other suggestion. Start planning as many of the actual structures you may want to include and draw them on your plan.
My first experience was to plan and put down the track with ideas only of what structures were foing to go where. What I found was a lot of the structures we want to model are the larger ones - the industries etc. While N scale has a better scenery to track ratio it would be a good idea at this point to plan in those spaces.
As an example, the Interstate Fuel Oil facility below is actually quite small, however, by the time you allow space around the model - turn vehicles, allow for a tree or two and other assundry details - that space grows. The footprint it is sitting in below is 12" x 14". For the same in your scale you are looking at 6" x 7"
Behind the fuel facility, will sit the Walthers creamery model. I looked up the dimensions before I ever purchased it and put the structures on my plan. In two dimensions everything looks right. Now that I am on the physical part of putting it all together I am putting down card board mockups. Again, while in two dimensions it looks ok, the view now is in 3 dimensions and I now see where the creamery (it is tall - the tube is the smoke stack from the creamery power plant) will tower over the fuel facility.
Point: What looks right in 2D may not be what you expected in 3D.
I am using your original drawing because it is closer to what I had in mind. It is also more interesting than the second one you came up with in terms of watching trains. Forgive the crudeness. Rather than repeat myself, use the previous description with this drawing.
You can open up the back of your mountain like a machine gun bunker to service the track there. The opening should not be seen from the front. You’ll want the inside of the mountain hollow anyway to service the track in the tunnels.
Because of the crude drawing program, I did not double the main running around the outside in the lower right. That should double all the way to the passenger station.
Thanks Tom, that makes good sense. I’ve been going through the 2007 Walthers catalog to see what interests me and will fit.
I think I’m pretty close to having my industries picked out as a coal mine (lower right), brewery and bottling plant (inside the city loop, upper right siding there) and possibly a grainery. But like you said, the 3d aspect of a grainery right there in front on the last siding, blocking the view of everything isn’t appealing.
Any suggestions for a low-profile industry that might fit there?
I guess I could turn that siding left and drop below the table for staging tracks. Hmm…
2" base height
Between the red, the double mainline drops to 1" before going under the loop and comes back up to 2" on the top.
Between the yellow rise to 2.5"
Between blue lines rise from 2.5" to 4.5"
Between brown lines drop from 4.5 to 3"
after brown line, drop another .5" to 2.5" to fit under the overpass of the loop then drop to 2" by the switch in the city.
Ugh, I just noticed that mspaint compressed the heck out of the image. Hopefully its somewhat intelligible.
BTW, I like your bunker mountain idea for maintenance… that sounds pretty workable.
It is the loop connection between the yard and the passenger area that I don’t like. That is the part that to me makes it toy-like. Instead of taking your A/D track toward the passenger terminal, have it follow the main like a prototype would do. It can even join back up with the main if you want using a curved turnout. And don’t be afraid of flex.
If you do run the A/D out the main, switch your industry from the area of the passenger terminal like you have done now–just drop the loop.
I don’t see why the double main has to change elevations, the lower track, the one going past the mine into the loop can go over the main at about 3% and back down under the loop at about 2% (is that about right, I’m not so good with N-scale at this point.) Good reason for helper service there.
I think I would double the main all through the loop. You could get some great action–a slow freighter climbing up with a fast passenger going the other direction. This layout could support 3-4 operators easily.
I guess you’re right, killing that loop really opens up the middle of the board to widen the mountain loop and reconnect the A/D to the main if I want.
EDIT: Hmm, I’m not sure this is going to work for the yard lead though… it’s just not long enough to get a 11-15 car train into the yard without running that tail end into a tunnel into the mountain. I think that’s why I connected the A/D and had a long lead wrap around insde that loop.
EDIT 2: Well, there’s my inexperience showing… all you have to do is get the whole train off the main line. Then break it apart into 1/2 or 1/3 and put pieces away into the yard at a time. I guess I should look for a yard operating book to supplment my “starting out in N scale modeling” book.
Have the lead A/D track be an extension of the line coming down from the passdenger terminal and save a turnout. YOu can run the track parallel to the main under the bridge and right up to the mountain and then reattach to the main at that point. It should be plent long enough.
I would also put a runaround track off that track to act as a switcher pocket and escape track for your road engine so your switcher can back the cars into the yard.
Blocking the view ? It depends on what the design intention is. I have a staging yard with the town of La Grange in front of it. In my case I want those grain bins to hide the staging behind.
While these painted coffee cans are not quite as big as the bins I intend to put there, they convey to to me if my choice will attain the affect I want.
As far as suggestions for a low profile industry, tap into your inspiration. I see from a google search that Terra Haute does have a brewery. What else does/did it have ? How will that brewery get power ? Maybe a power plant or distribution sub-station ? What supplies would a power plant or sub-station need ? … coal ?
You have the right ideas. It’s a matter of reducing the choices (darn those catalogues [;)]) to what you want; your druthers.
I liked your other plan better. Why? Because I felt a sense of purpose. You knew what you wanted to do.
The differences–this one is more of a railfan layout with a yard stuck on. The previous one was an interchange layout with a city that it serviced.
Now what can you do to make this better? You have two fundamental problems with your yard.
The yard lead is not long enough to switch out the trains that can arrive on your A/D tracks.
Most of your yard is on curves. This makes coupling and uncoupling difficult.
Try bring ing your main right along side the diagnal table edge and building the same yard on the inside of the main. You should have more room & less curves.
The latest plan is a lot simpler schematically. It is basically a double oval with the ovals twisted so at times that are running as a double track main and in other places are a single track. The earlier plans were the proverbial bowls of spaghetti. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. Such layouts were very popular decades ago because they could pack a lot of mainline running into a small space and allowed for dramatic scenic effects with tracking passing above and below other tracks. The downside is you get less of a feeling of a train actually going somewhere. I think the earlier plans were suited to just running trains through interesting scenes while the later plan might be better suited operationally.
The city is still there, I just haven’t drawn the roads yet. This one has more purpose than the other I felt. A city and a mining town exchanging goods, and the inner loop can represent traffic from the rest of the world. (I’m still toying with putting in a track somewhere to go off the board or some out of view staging) My previous layouts were primarily big loops trying to occupy space with sidings thrown in before reading more about operations.
The yard lead is longer than it appears… the first switch is a runaround. It’s 24" long (and I think I can squeeze more out of it when I polish it up), and my longest yard finger is 29". The second A/D track you see is a thoroughfare, but could be another A/D in a pinch I suppose.
The yard curves are gentle, 30" radius and I’ve not seen coupling troubles on shorter radius (although all I have are rapido couplers right now). I got the idea from Armstrong’s book on operations.
I don’t think the tail of the switchback on the lower left side is long enough for anything but a single short locomotive.
Is all the space on the top past the tracks to the north of the river for scenic effect? In this version it seems to be a fairly large area that could be better utilized.
I think the number of tracks running parallel to one another (eventhough they are not dual track) adds to the illusion of a Pennsy or NYC type system.
The indstries inside the upper loop are pretty far away from the isles. It seems the area next to the diagonal pop-up might be a better place (or an additional place) to position a few switching places.
Yeah, I was noticing that about the switchback too. I’m redoing that area.
All that space up in the northwest isn’t really there. I goofed when I took the screenshot from the 3d view in RTS. It leaves an extra bit of white space on the top edge of the image. But I happily scenic’d it in PSP The next image I’ll be more careful.
Those switches are pretty distant, you’re right (24-30"). I’m not planning on that popup area to be an operating area though, just for access if needed and to leave the L-shape easy to move if/when we relocate.
