I finally got my trackplan on paper (so to speak). This plan shows trackage and the outlines of my 2 rivers, but no structures yet. I was anxious to get opinions of the N scale track plan, however (I will update when I get structures in). I drew the plan with Atlas RTS software. I plan to use flextrack and not all of the sectional track that had to be used here to make up curves, etc. Let me know your honest opinions and suggestions of my 17’x17’ plan which is presently under early stages of construction.
Clik link for large image (this didn’t work right but it gets the job done).
To be honest a 17’x17’ N scale layout is huge and should be good any way your track plan is. I would rather do HO scale but that is because I am an ***. Well just do what pleases you not me and any other forumite [:D][:D]
You do have a lot of yards although It’s hard to say which are staging and which are working yards. Most plans I see don’t have enough yard space. You might have too much of a yard to mainline ratio. I would consider combining two of the smaller yards into one big one and having a longer run between the yards with more industries along the way.
[#ditto] I agree that there does appear that there could be some confusion in the large yard. There may be a traffic jam as trains enter and leave the large yard. Could be a neat switching manuver. Enjoy.
Some explaination is in order. Near the bottom of the drawing you can see a scenic devider. the yard below this is my main hidden staging yard connecting to both ends my point-to-point layout. the smaller yards directly “above” this, in the corner on the “left-center,” and on the end of the peninsula are interchanges between BNSF (the main modeled railroad) and two shortlines and UP. These represent prototype yards in Fort Worth and Wichita Falls, TX. The large yard on the “top” of the peninsula is North Yard in Saginaw, TX and is my main modeled yard. The Three track “yard” on the “top” of the plan is actually the service tracks for a huge ADM grain elevator complex (the larget in TX) and the two track “above” it are semi-hidden staging representing a connection with another BNSF sub. The final yard on the “lower right” corner is Wichita Falls yard which only handles local switching and interchange wth the WT&J (mentioned above). Some of the track in this yard and in North yard serve industries–a grain elevator at Wichita Falls and a grain elevator, a grocery distributor, and a construction company at North Yard. Hope this helps clarify my ideas here. Yard operations and semi-live interchange traffic were two of my primary goals in designing this layout.
My plan is this. You see the main running along the “top” of the large yard (Nort Yard). The next track is my arrival/departure track. Switching will be done primarily from the south (right) end via the drill track that runs abound the curve.
My thought is, and i’m not sure if I quite understand your explanation:
Are your staging yards representing connections 1 or two yards?
If not, and each connection has its own yard, I think it will be in your best interest to combine them, perhaps into a mainline staging yard and a minor connection’s yard.
Otherwise, I really like this plan, and I give you my best wishes for your enjoyment.
My double ended staging yard, seen at the very bottom center of this picture, is hidden by the scenic divider drawn here and represents connections to major destinations on both ends of the layout (connections to Amarillo, TX and Houston, TX). Just above the 5 track staging, above the scenic divider, is a smaller yard that “ends” in the divider which is an interchange point–the Wichita, Tillman, & Jackson’s Katy yard in Wichita Falls, TX.
Two thinks caught my attention right away. The unconnected track at the bottom left of the very top section and the interchange at the end of the peninsula.
What’s up with the unconnected track? It seems to me that unless you are trying to model a specific section of a specific prototype that having all the track usable would be a big plus.
The interchange is not very interchangeable. It would be very hard to get from the outermost track onto the running part of the layout. It wold be imposable with a full length train.
It is a really good looking plan. I just had a few questions.
Let me explain my thinking on these then tell me your thoughts. First, the unconnected track represents a section on the prototype where a UP main runs parallel to the modeled BNSF main for a mile or so. This is a major feature in the real railroad in Saginaw TX. I couldn’t actually model the UP at this point, but I put the track there for asthetic purposes and made it my programming track to give it some function. By the way, this UP main on the prototype connects to the UP main that is modeled interchanging with BNSF at downtown yard on the lower part of the peninsula.
As for the interchange on the end of the peninsula, my intention was to include enough room to interchange a few cars at a time and allow them to be moved from the interchange track to the one yard track (middle) for switching manervers. The far outer track represents the Fort Worth & Western’s main line, which I thought should be seen but probably will not get much actual use on the layout.
Thanks for your thoughts. Let me know what you think.
I notices a yard track in my curved yard that I had laid but was completely unconnected, so I fixed it and updated the picture. This time thw thumb link worked like it is supposed to. Go figure.
Found another mistake. I had the crossover into the left end of the A/D track on North Yard (upper part of the penninsula) going the wrong way. It is fixed now.
To be honest, this seems overambitious and expensive for one person to undertake. A 17’ x 17’ HO layout would be a big undertaking. I would build it in logical smaller increments. Finishing one area before starting another.
