Hi everyone. I posted an earlier version of this layout idea on another thread but have since gone through some revisions. I cleaned it up a bit and made some modifications to make the grade a bit less steep. I’m incredibly stubborn and am trying my hardest to squeeze some kind of elevations into a 5x9 space. [:)]
I would specifically appreciate any feedback about the “operations” areas of the layout - i.e. the tracks at the top of the mountain, in the town, the siding, etc. For now I just sort of through something in there but wanted input about what would be best from a practical operations stand point as I have no experience with operations.
I picture the layout having 3 scenes - some sort of mining or other industry on the top of the mountain, with a line of trees acting as a scenic divider. Then would have some sort of small lake with some structures, and then a town with another industry of some sort.
It would be nice if I could have two trains orbiting the oval mainline tracks at the bottom and have an option to have a 3rd train do some operations on the branch line.
I figure the terminal tracks on the top and bottom right side could be used for future expansion if I wanted to add a yard, etc. down the line. Was also wondering if I had room to add a two track yard at the top?
Also, don’t know if you can see it, but I have some crossover tracks at the bottom but they are covered by the mountain. I’m assuming this is not a good idea? Will have to think about placing those somewhere else.
I would work in a run around track on the end of your branch line on top of the mountain. Otherwise you’ll have to push some cars and pull some others going up and down the branchline.
lower tracks in the center left, I would eliminate the turnout to the middle track - it doesn’t look like it has enough room for even 1 car on the middle track.
Lower tracks in the center left, I would move the turnout back to curve around the building and replace that curve with a right handed turnout to get long spur/yard tracks.
Looks interesting, a lot in a moderate sized space. If you have any flexibility on going slightly larger, consider the effect that you can gain on minimum radius and/or track proximity to table edge.
Remember to make your yards flat, and consider whether you want a yard entry to be uphill, an operating challenge for decoupling, etc.
Calculate your grade and consider train length for same. I’ve got 2.4% mainline which is pretty significant, though on my 6x10 layout I won’t have superlong trains. My locos will pull about 15-18 cars on this grade.
Also, consider access. I was extreme in my 5’9" width which makes trackwork a challenge and may be even tougher on detailing. I had a choice of adding an access hole and decided on more yard track. As you know, there are many compromises to consider.
I’ve been reading through some old threads by you, still a lot is inclear.
What kind of equipment are you going to run? The max length of cars and trains should been known. How many trains do you want to run at the very same time, what do you want them to do?
Looking at your plan i can see two trains doing laps. Is this al you want for your son’s? Do you want a third train, possibly a wayfreight, operated by you indepent from the boy’s trains?
Since you have no run-around, nor a small yard, the needed switching for the wayfreight will stop all traffic on the double track main. Or is this a non-issue? Cause when dad is operating his train the boy’s are out of the room.
I did not understand what you mean by the best operational standpoint. Since many years you usually walk along the layout with your train, so you are always close to the action. This is possible with DCC and with DC.
Thanks for the input guys. I don’t really own an equipment yet - so the answer to that is - I will run whatever equipment I can on the layout. I realize that the form I’ve chosen is limiting in that regard. I don’t expect to run very long trains.
I did design the layout to allow for two trains running continuously, but also wanted to be able to run ops on it at the same time. That’s the part that I needed help with designing. I left spaces for that sort of thing (hopefully a reasonable amount for short trains) but wasn’t sure of the best way to structure those track sections. The kind of advice you guys are giving, with respect to the yard tracks, sidings, etc is exactly what I was looking for.
Two things that I think really need to be looked at: The industrial section with the S curved spur and the short tracks has gotta be changed. And the double crossover that’s buried in the yellow area could cause problems.
Other things as a matter of preference or ideas to consider:
The location of turnouts for the two industrial spurs can be swapped, and by having the spurs cross each other, you can keep them straighter, making it easier to couple cars.
There doesn’t seem to be a lot of use for the two small spurs on the outside of the loop. There’s no room for a real industry and they take up real estate that could be used to have broader radius curves for the loops.
The advantage of a 5x9 over a 4x8 is the additional space for broader curves. Overall, you don’t seem to be taking advantage of that.
The idea of a runaround on the upper level is a good one.
Generally speaking, I would not want to have three trains on this layout. Perhaps if you limit it to two you can cut down on the number of loops and have more room for buildings. (Edit: I had not seen the posts about wanting to accommodate your boys and two trains. Nevermind)
I don’t recall if you have access to all four sides of this plan or if some edges are along a wall. The scenery options are different depending on that. More info would be helpful.
Also, if you are trying to have more than one scene on this layout, I would want to use a divider of some sort. Either backdrop material running the length of the layout or a center ridge. Checkout the Virginian Build Thread in this forum and you can see how the steep ridge on that layout helps to separate two scenes and creates a sense of distance. Provided you have access to three sides of course.
Thanks Doughless. I am definitely going to remove the crossover thats under the mountain and rearrange the industrial spur. I’m not sure I totally understand how you said it’s not utilizing the space for broader curves.
The outer loops is 24". Should I try an even large radius there? I seem to remember that with a radius larger than that, I wasn’t about to fit on the table but I will give it another shot. The other thing I’m expecting is that I will need more clearance space between the outer and inner tracks. Right now it’s 24" outer and 22" inner.
Also I will have access to all sides of the layout.
My comments come from strictly an operational perspective.
I know it is hard to design a smaller layout for operations. However, it can be done. The best one that I have seen is a layout called “A town between two tunnels” I think it was on a 8X14, but it could work in a 5X9 space.
There is a mountain against the back where the track goes into a tunnel and is hidden, then it comes out the other side. When the track comes out of the tunnel, or between tunnels, there is a double ended siding used for switching. The town and some industries are located between the passing siding and the mountain.
Now what this layout and track plan represents is a town served by the train. The train comes into town, stopping and doing some switching of the industries. When done, the train continues on it’s journey, thus going into the tunnel and mountain.
The layout was featured in Model Railroader November 1991 and was called Heritage Park RR. You might be able to find a copy.
With a 5X9 space, you could make the RR double track and have a branch going up the mountain although it would be tight, like you have now. The layout would be operated from the front only, and the mainline tracks under the mountain could be used to stop the trains and wait for a bit of time before continuing on.
It seems like there is a lot of space in between the outer loop and the edge of the table. You can use flex track to make a larger than 24 inch radius curve if you wanted/had too.
Or, you could leave the radius like it is and can shove the entire layout down closer to the bottom edge. This would give you more space along the top edge where you could place some buildings or possibly have another spur (but it would be tight)
If all sides are open you may not want to get closer to the edges, however.
