I’ve been working up a track plan for my newest HO empire, and am looking for input & suggestions from experienced layout builders. Here’s the plan:
[img.nr]c:\jim\layout.gif[/img.nr]
The overall layout space is 17’-9"x9’-9". Each grid in the plan is 12". The minimum curve radius is generally 24", though I cheated the curve in the lower right corner down to 22". Turnouts are #4 to save space with #6’s at the double crossover.
Here are my requirements:
I want to be able to railfan with two trains in continuous running, or to switch industries with one train while another runs continuously.
I’d also like to combine the two continuous loops into one line and run the railroad as a point-to-point if desired. I could accompli***his by using the double crossover and treating each end of the yard as a separate destination.
I want enough switching to keep things interesting without having to solve complex swithing puzzles.
I’d appreciate any input from more seasoned layout designers who might be able to catch hidden problems or improve the overall plan.
Thanks for any help.
Hey mononguy welcome to the forums!!
Can’t see your picture. from the pic properties I see you tried to paste from your computer, it doesn’t work like that you need a web site to host the picture for you like www.railimages.com.
email me if you want and I can post this one for you!!.
EDIT
here’s the plan.
Ken.
Or www.photobucket.com that;s where I keep mine.
Matthew
Thanks, Ken. Now rip away at it!
I like it good use of runarounds and facing and trailing sidings.
I’m still a novice at track plans but I’m learning!
Ken
Mononguy,
I’m by no means an expert, but I see one potential problem with your design (if I’m interpreting this correctly):
In the upper left, you have what looks like two 45-degree (or so) level crossings. The two “vertical” tracks merge just below the two crossings, which leads to the bridge. The “horizontal” track sweeps around to the left, and under the bridge. The problem is that the track lengths between the bridge and the crossings are so short, you may not be able to get enough vertical separation between the bottom of the bridge and the track underneath it. I could be wrong, but at first glance, that’s what jumped out at me.
Otherwise, it looks pretty good to me. Good luck!
My answer is going to depend on the equipment you intend to run… That is are you doing a 40s or 50s era layout where most freight cars will be 40 or 50 footers? Or is it more modern where 60-80 footers will be the name of the game?? The main feature I like about your plan is the same one I don’t like. The yard. I like the double ended yard but curved yards can be tedius to operate. That is, cars don’t always couple reliably… 40-40 will likely be okay, as would 50-50. But when you go to couple a 40 to a 50 you’ll find that the couplers don’t line up and you’ll need some help from above to get them coupled. The longer the cars, the more of a problem this will be. You might want to see if you can at least broaden the curves in that area some.
You are wise not to incorporate any ‘must solve’ switching puzzles into the track plan… They can always be created with obsticles (derailed car for instance) but if you build them in, it will become very frustrating Very fast…
It appears as though you have a duckunder… YUCKHHH!!! It may be unavoidable to get the type of running you want (which is the type I enjoy most) but I would straighten that track and make the duckunder as narrow as possible. A simple straight 3 inch wide bridge that swings up or down for easy access. Be sure that when it’s removed, a good section of the layout to and from that bridge is also dead…
Overall though it looks like you have a decent plan to start with… Those are just, from my experience with all of them, what I would change…
Jeff
[8D]
I agree with Dan. You don’t have enough room on that merging line to rise out of the loop, just after the southernmost crossing, and get enough clearance over the double track. You WOULD, however, if your yard was depressed by and inch, and that track then could pass under the bridge.
I agree about the yard radius being too tight but I think with a little tweaking this could be a very fun to operate layout. If you dont have an NMRA guage, you need one. The reason I bring this up is because if you put the NMRA guage on the end to make it as tall as possible, that is the minimum hieght clearance you need between tracks. I think its about 4 inches (not sure on that) but lets say for math’s sake that its 4 inches.
OK, assuming you grid is in 1 foot incriments I’m guessing there is about 2.5 feet of track between the level crossing and the bridge. Now lets see, 2.5*12 is 30 inches. So you have 30 inches laterally to go 4 inches vertically. That comes out (if my math is right) to a 13 1\3% grade!!! The max you should have is 2% to 2.5%.
So the bridge needs to be reconsidered. My suggestion would be to put that entire loop on a 2 or 2.5% grade and make both the 45 degree crossings and the proposed bridge bridges.
I think it’s closer to 3.25 above the rails but that’s a minumum and again will depend on what you want to run… Yes, Get the gauge… In case you are unfamiliar with it…
http://www.nmra.org/standards/consist.html#standards
Here’s another interesting link on the same site that may prove helpful…
http://www.nmra.org/beginner/consist.html
Jeff
I’m not understanding the upper left. I too think that you have too much grade.
I like the options for operations, but you will add a lot by adding staging, or at least planning for it in the future. You may not think you need it now, but based upon your design and they way you have set it up for operations, staging will be your next step. It’s better to plan for it now instead of trying to work it in to a built layout.
I think that track comes off the bridge splits into two, over the single track around the loop and under itself then back under the bridge. mayby a 14’ run before going under.
Ken.
For the upper left corner,I was envisioning the upper line crossing the bridge and splitting off the sidings all at about a +4" elevation then looping downgrade into perhaps a tunnel. By my figuring, I came out at about a 2.5% grade.
I planned on making the duckunder a hinged fold-down piece. By the time I finish building this layout I’ll probably be too old & derepit to bend underneath…
I bent the yard beause the ladder tracks were just sucking up square footage and I couldn’t get a decent length of yard and still get the curve radius I wanted coming out into the rest of the layout. I there a better way to do that?
I notice that you have no switching lead for your main yard. You’ll be fouling constantly as you assemble and disassemble trains. You might want to include one - it will really enhance your yard operations. It might be a little tight, but you might fit one in at the left end of the yard.
Also, at the right end ladder, you might add a caboose track parallel to the ladder. it will add only two more turnouts…
Greetings Monoguy63. Just a couple of things to consider, first you have a large enough area so keep the radii as large as possible, 30" preferably. You won’t be sorry. Secondly, your effective reach is only about 30", keep in mind access to derailments and scenery. [banghead]
Other than the fact that there are several places that you cannot reach in the event of a derailment, it’s pretty cool. Look at ALL the corners. How in the heck are you gonna reach them? Also, there’s a turnout that’s almost impossible to reach about four feet away from your upper left hand corner, on the top. You’ll certainly need access holes at the very least. I had to rethink some areas on my layout to gain access to. It aint too tough, you just have to use some imagination.