This is what ive come up with after a few days of research.
Some of you guys may have seen something similar before but ive sqaushed it lenght ways from 15 feet down to 11 feet 6 inches. The width will be 9 feet 6 inches. The extra 6 inches is not shown because i couldnt fit it on the paper.
Theres a good few things im not happy with at the moment and this plan may well not be used.
The biggest problem ive got is that i wanted a nice flowing return curve down the left side and the branch would rise and go over the double track via an overpass for some added interest. Unfortunately theres not enough track lenght between the switches at the bottom and the overpass to get the return loop over the top of the main. I have had to include 2 boring diamonds instead.
I thought about having a falling grade for the double track on the left, then the branch would be rising and the double track falling but this will cause bigger complications on the return over the swing down section so thats a non starter.
Problem 2 is do i have enough track lenght to enable it to reach ‘level’ for the diamonds after going under the switching yard? I dont think so! And i cant have a rising switching yard to clear the return loop either for obvious reasons!
The other thing on my mind is dose it have scope for enough industrys serving the railway and so adding interest??
Ive allowed 12 inches for all switches but i havnt a clue what # switches i’l need but i figure on #6 to #8’s.
The smallest radi i have is 26inch and these are marked and actual radi.
I do like this plan but i reckon it maybe back to the drawing board.
Any feedback would be great!
Ive just had the idea that i could make the return loop ‘fall’ starting from where it leaves the main oposite the turntable and pass it under the double track section. It would then be low enough to pass under the
I don’t see the point of a swing down bridge in the center. With all the crawling you are going to do with this layout it seems pointless to increase your construction problems.
What is the purpose of this railroad? How do you see it operating? Where is it located? What era? Is it a class 1 railroad or a short line? These types of questions need to be answered before I can answer whether the plan can serve industries.
As it is I see a lot of loops and only two spurs. You have a lot of classification track in the yard with a short yard lead.
Thanks SpaceMouse those are some very good questions. You’l have to forgive my ingnorance, when it comes to U.S railroads, im very green indeed and dont realy know sqaut!
Ive dabbled in the U.K scene for years since i was kid, im now approaching 40[:D] Trouble is, track planning is not one of my strong points. Give me a brass engine kit to build- no problem!
Im prety hooked on the 90’s to present day and yes it is H0. I would would like to run big 6 axle diesels and a switcher like a Alco S1 or such like. I would like to use trains consisting of freight only, namely grain, box cars and maybe double stacks, head room permiting.
I’d like to take the freelance approach now as my U.K layout stuck to one era firmly and that era was one national company at the time anyway, easy!
I do like to just sit back and let the train run acasionaly hence the continuous run.
Although the yard lead looks short at first glance, i did intend to use the end of the return as part of the lead, ie, the bottom left side of the plan. The middle track at left bottom would be classified as the ‘main’.
You’r dead right about the small number of spurs, that has crossed my mind. I’d like to add atleast 2 industrys to add some interest.
I do like curves and dislike straights and im finding it tough to keep this theme in the space available. Looks like i’l have to put up with 2 duck unders (2 to many i know) but ive found that without one of them the layout takes on the look of a train set oval (again, been there, done that) and im afraid that it’l get tiring.
The layout will be in a timber out-house/shed where the old one was.
I would try to get rid of the swing down section in the middle and add one were you will be accessing the center if possible.
The crossover near the turntable closest to the bottom of your plan is a waste. Drop it.
Typically, locomotives are fueled on the lead to a turntable and not on a stub track off the turntable. If possible, you should have two tracks to the turntable, one incoming and one outgoing.
Since you’ve decided to model a turntable and roundhouse, you’ll want to show some signs of steam servicing facilities. I am not aware of a railroad building new engine facilities for diesel locomotives with a turntable as diesels do not need turning. Since your modeling modern times, that evidence may be nothing more than old foundations from water tanks, coaling towers, and ash pits. You could possibly have an old decaying conrete coaling tower still standing, but stripped of it’s coal shutes and ladders. Wooden coaling towers would typically been torn down long ago.
Please understand that I’m not trying to blow you off, or sidestep the issue, but the topic is so broad that maybe it’s best to point you in a direction and then let you answer some of the questions that come to your mind that way. Here’s a link to a site that’s helped me a lot.
No problem guys, i appreciate the help! The crossover has been dropped, i didnt notice that i’d made it redundunt when i altered the origonal plan[:I]
The swing down section will have to go, i can see it becoming a nitemare sooner rather than later and i wont have to worry about the electronics involved for a return loop.
The round house was for more of a space saver than a prototypical perspective[:I]
Im going to take it back to basic’s and i’l post the result when im done.
Thats a helpfull link Phil, ive been looking at that over the last week or so but i still struggle[:D]
I am going to swim counter-current to the feedback you have received so far…at least some of it. I have the reversing “S” that you have depicted, and otherwise have no other conceivable way of reversing the direction of travel for my trains. Since you seem to have established a strong preference for long curves and watching trains run, you will be grateful for the ability to change direction from time-to-time, so I would counsel you, if you keep something like this plan, to find a way to incorporate the reversing trackage. If you are youngish, and have no soft-tissue issues that would prevent you from using a duck-under, I would have it. You will almost certainly tear down this layout within five years anyway, if my understanding of the statistical half-life of a layout is anything to go by. If the duck-under turns out to be a bust, eliminate it in subsequent plans.
With some occasional doodling, you will find a way to improve the “business” side of this track plan. Some switching spurs here and there will add immensely to your varied train operations and provide some relief when you find that you have become tired of turning to follow your trains.
Vairety and flexibility are what keep a trackplan young and vital. If it is too uni-dimensional, you will have spent a great deal of money and time for little gain.
I agree with Selector. I suggested getting rid of the hinge not the duck-under. Your layout has you crawling all over the place. I saw no reason to go to the trouble of a lift-out/up.
Yup, one will be enough by the door, dont think i could live with a duck under AND a swing down.
Ive just recieved the book ’ A guid to track planing for realistic operation by John Armstrong’ and i gota say its far better than anything ive seen available in the U.K (suprise suprise).
Its certainly given me some inspiration and idea’s aswell as how not to do it!
