I received lots of good (and harsh and good :)) advice last time, thank you so much! So here is another try.
I am planning for N scale, at below mentioned small room and space. Because I’m inexperienced the layout looks like someone vomited a bunch of track all over the benchwork. There were some general ideas I had:
I’m not so much into prototypes, but want to have fun. Though I’m starting to realize that often you have more fun with prototypical layouts for a good reason…
I like run-around trains. So I did a this double overlay loopy that runs between Tredgar Iron & Steel (Richmond, VA) and the Gary Works Steel Lakeside Yard (stole the name, but there the prototype ends…).
The lines cross above each other on Mayo Island (Richmond, VA, has some great elevated runs along the James River on plate girder, with trains running under/over each other… check out this Google Maps image at http://g.co/maps/haksa or over a river lock about 200 yards south at http://g.co/maps/rkz6u)
Mainline will be Peco c55 with medium and large turnouts, while local company RR will be Atlas c80, minimum radius is 12.5", max grade 3degr (with exceptions at local industries), all curves with easements.
Iron Mountain is after a layout by E.S. Seeley Jr. from the 70ties for HO Atlas Snap-Track, late steam. I thought I’ll have a company railroad switcher that works the iron mines (and lately someone dropped a coal mine there, but whatchaknow), with Atlas #4 switches and some few tight turns at 11" as well as short grades of 4.6deg.
The company RR of Iron Mountain delivers coal and iron to the Gary Works Yard on top, where a diesel picks it up and drives it to either Tredgar Iron & Steel or Gary Works’ Lakeside yard (all #6 switches and 12.5" radius. The lower yard could work as a very small 3 track classification yard (4th track is the run-around doubling as a junk yard access)
I can access all areas within my arms reach (I thin
My opinion, FWIW is that I think you will get a lot of the same advice you got with the other post. There is just to much track and to much of it is hard to get to. This applies with the building of the layout as well as the operation.
In building my layout, I can absolutely verify that 3 feet is the absolute farthest you want to want to have a reach without access from the other side! While I have no active track laid yet, the structure is up and I’ve been able to experiment with reaches and such. Base track level on my layout is 48 inches, which is low compared to where some people put it.
Regarding scenery you will end up with no river (or lake) at all. Slopes towards rivers are never vertically alone and will take more space then you are aware of.
Trying to get your plan more simple is very hard, cause it means to leave beloved issues out.
The Virginian by Byron Henderson could be a good starting point for your layout; added a plan by me too.
Good access to Lakeside Yard. Good access to the left side of Iron Mountain, but it gets problematic at the right side – yet you’d want lots of access for uncoupling etc.
Somewhat questionable access to Steeltown but possibly ok. Having said that, things like trees, utility poles, utility poles with modeled wire, and the like can create access problems not obvious on a drawn plan.
The biggest problem however is The Gary Works Company yard and that turntable. They look like a problem to install and a problem to operate.
Might I suggest a line of thought about future track plans. You have a fairly confined space and this plan, for example, has the layout touching 3 of the four walls. Think about a plan that has the layout touching just one wall, but not that entire length of back wall, with some sort of access on all sides. Even access that would be awkward and utterly unacceptable for operators at an operating session can be “good enough” for installation and access. Kind of depends on your girth. But if someone is actually expected to stand there and switch cars, then you need even more.
Unfortunately, simply stringing together sections or entire track plans from a variety of sources doesn’t work all that well, as you are finding out. Some of the big problems I see:
The Iron Mountain plan you imported is designed around completely different criteria than the rest of the layout. Iron Mountain was designed as a stand-alone switching layout, and was not designed to be part of a bigger layout without signficant modification. As drawn in your layout, the car ferry/lower terminal is useless and non-functional. It would be by-passed by traffic from the rest of the layout to the mine scene. Either eliminate the lower terminal or mirror- image the Iron Mountain layout section so that the branch enters the section through the lower terminal.
Passing siding lengths are very inconsistent throughout the layout. The Iron Mountain section has very short passing sidings and runaround tracks due to its heritage as a minimal space shelf switcher. You need a train length standard - can be different between branch and main - and use that to set passing siding lengths (or vice versa). Staging tracks also need to be viewed in terms of train lengths, not numbers.
Switching is set up in the back instead of next to the aisle. How will you throw turnouts and uncouple cars? If not being done remotely, you have to be able to reach without disturbing stuff in front. And if being done remotely, are you really going to install uncoupling magnets at every single car spot? Or are you really going to have the very good slow-running locomotives, smooth rolling cars, clean and level track, and accurately mounted and maintained couplers that delayed uncoupling requires? What about sight angles to even see where to spot cars, or that turnouts are aligned properly on the back of the layout?
Minimum vertical clearance and access for your extensive hidden track. How are you
awesome advice - thanks a lot for all your feedback! There are so many things I have not thought about, good to hear people speaking from experience I’ll try to make better (and new) mistakes instead.
I do not see this as being to difficult to reach as there are access areas inreach of most of the congested tracks. The heavy industry on two banks of a river suggest Pittsburgh, Pa to me. Which incidentally had the union railroad, pennsy, pittsburgh and lake erie, b&o, pitts and wv, bessemer and lake erie as well as others. All of these railroads dumped a lot of track into some very heavily industrialized space on river banks with lots of bridges. The only area that looks like it will present problems are the hidden tracks, but with some careful construction access could be obtained underneath the layout. In looking at your design it seems that nothing is beyond 3 feet and most things are with in the 2 to 21/2 range.
With some automation of your reverse loops you could have one train running while you work the switching areas or could easily support 3 operators if that is your thing, and that is with simple dc wiring. DCC would open up even more possibilities.
I think it was John Armstrong who said that a good ‘rule of thumb’ on track planning was to work out what you considered to be the right amount of track for your given space, and then remove about 1/3rd of it. Most of us try to cram too much track into too small a space!!
Hi Paul, thanks for the links and track examples! looking at the larger yard ladder of the Virginian I am wondering why there is no yard lead - wouldn’t I constantly spoil the mainline while classifying trains?
Here is a list of my “nuggets” and take-aways (for now) for beginners like me looking at this thread later:
“vertical clearance and access for your extensive hidden track” is problematic
“prioritize the elements” of the layout, and leave out the lesser important ones
“passing siding lengths” should be consistent with train lengths
Armstrong’s rule of thumb: “Plan your layout and then remove about 1/3rd of its track”.
“things like trees, utility poles, utility poles with modeled wire, and the like can create access problems not obvious on a drawn plan.”
“Regarding scenery you will end up with no river (or lake) at all. Slopes towards rivers are never vertically alone and will take more space then you are aware of.”
just a rather short reply; it depends on the way you will operate your layout.
On lot of branch lines often a few trains a day (or week) were run. No need then for a dedicated yard lead. If your vision is having a train(s) doing laps on the mainline, while you are switching the yard, you will need one very much.
Having a solid idea about the way trains are run before drawing lines on paper is mentioned loud and clearly by Byron Henderson (Cuyama).
IMHO starting with a drawing of your room (space) with obstacles like doors and negotiated boundaries is the best starting point for a layout-plan. But only if you have a clear layout-vision, the best footprint can be chosen.
I’ll try to make better (and new) mistakes instead.