I finally got the link to my new layout design. So let me explain it a little bit before you look at the link. It actually was one big picture on drafting paper but I had to copy and scan it into the computer to its actually on three sheets of paper and unfortunately the sheets need to be turned clockwise one time to view it.
The first picture is of the left hand side of the layout. The second picture is the bottom of the paper to show the measurement in feet of the layout and the third page is of the right hand side of the layout and the key to show what numbers, symbols mean. Please be honest and critical in telling me what you think. Shout out and big Thanks to Don Cardiff for helping me to come up with this design. I decided that it is going in the garage. After alot of back and forth it just wouldn’t work in the basement with me having a dog, and the very limited space. I’m going to start first with insulating and dry-walling the garage and going from there. I have a standard two car garage and it will take up one half of the garage so the back end of the layout will be up against the wall!
Here is the link from my previous discussion on this:
Designs are NEVER done; just as a model railroad is NEVER finished.
LION designed much of his layout in his head, easier to make changes that way, and you are not married to an idea that does not work out.
LION build layout with no helix. Locomotive pulled trains up the hill, LION did not care about percents and all of that sort of stuff.
LION bought subway cars. You would think that a powered subway car would be just as good as a powered locomotive, but then you would be thinking too much.
So I pulled out a section of track and built a two track helix. It worked real good, but the LION’S thinking evolved, and now him wanted a four track helix, so him pulled out the two track helix and built a four track helix, and while him was at it he pulled out Penn Station replacing it with a 34th Street subway station, and pulled out the staging yards on the lower level and created the Union Square and Chambers Street Stations.
I am certain that my layout is now exactly as I want it, but I did pull out the model board from above my GRS interlocking machine and will build a new one that is in sync with my signal and control system.
That project has been on hold over the summer, since it is far too hot in the train room to play with trains in the summer time. Now I’ll get back up there again.
Am I correct that the back of the layout is where there is an industry marked “factory”, and that will be the side up against the wall?
Many of the dimensions don’t show up on the plan, such as how deep it is front to back. However, there are a couple of radii shown up, or to the right, of where it gives an elevation of 42. The larger of these is 27 inch, Allowing a couple of inches from the outer edge of the 27" radius track to the edge of the layout gives you at least 30 inches from that point. How do you plan to access anything along that back wall if you have to reach in 30 or more inches?
Reach, as Maxman noted. The track is also close to the edge almost everywhere and probably doesn’t need to be if you can expand a bit along the garage bay. Widening the central access aisle would ease some of the reach issues.
The plan seems to assume that a #6 turnout fits smoothly into a 27" radius curve. That may not work out as well as you hope, depending on the components you choose for building.
Edit: The locations of the crossovers seem to create potentially troublesome S-curves, similar to what is shown below:
Edit: The crossover near the “41” is on one of the steepest grades on the layout, which might add to the challenge. One way around it would be to use an angled crossover rather than straight, as seen below (you could still use #6s – the point is to eliminate the S-curve):
The grades may end up to be a bit steeper than is called-out, although I gave it only a quick rough eyeball. The plan as drawn does not seem to include length for transitions from level to grade and back to level, as shown here:
Recall that it can be troublesome to change grade within or directly at a turnout. But again, that’s based on a very quick look.
The yard also seems short for HO compared to the overall space of the layout, but it may fit your planned trains and operations. Once you allow f
I should be able to access the layout on both sides if need be since I will leave at least 24 inches on both sides of the layout to gain access to the sides and back. Also if you look there is a cutout in the front of the layout shaped like a piece of pie that will allow me access to the back as well. In theory this should work. When the building phase begins it may be another story. The outer radius is indeed 27’’ and the inner radius is 24’’ with the no. 6 turnouts as you know. As far as the challenges with the crossovers going into the S curve. I hadn’t thought about that. I do like what you have proposed though.
Yes, and it was from that area that I looked at the two radii I referenced in my post, above. Using those radii as a guide, it appears that the reach to the back from the “pie” is 30 inches or more. Note that your body will not fit flat against the table where the point of the pie is, so as you step back until you fit the reach will get larger. And as you “get larger” the situation will be made worse.
I also was wondering if the #4 turnouts would work better since they’re technically yard tracks and won’t see mainline running. I might just go ahead and modify those turnouts to include #4 instead of the number 6. What I also noticed is how on the outer main line the turnouts on the right hand side of the layout are at the beginning of the curves which may be a challenge and may need to be modified to include transition curves.
Any more ideas anyone? Rich, Mike Lehman, some of the seasoned modelers??? I really enjoy your input and ideas. Now looking at the industries I now realize its more freight centered instead of urban/small town suburban focused. It might b back to the drawing board…I am keeping the track plan as is though since I do like it.
That’s a bit puzzling since nearly all the comments so far have included specific concerns about the track plan drawing itself such as actual grade, S-curves, reach, not-to-scale turnouts, etc.
Cuyama Oh I didn’t mean like that. I should clarify that to mean I’m just keeping the same shape…such as double main and the design the same etc. I am definitely thinking bout elimination of the S curve since I know that will be a problem. And I’m going to reconsider the turnouts to #4. I always am receptive to suggestions especially if itwill help me reduce problems. Regg
I use Google Chrome and it wouldn’t open it. Tried Internet Explorer and it came up fine. (?) Possibly I need to install an app of some kind to view pdf files using Chrome. (?) First time this has happened.
Regg, no problem opening the file on any of my computers, even on my I-phone.
Been hesitating on a response since I am not a design expert, but… would like to see a design that is not likely to give you some of the same problems you had on your first layout. And responses by the experts have sort of dried up.
I understand your desire for a crossover- I have a loop with a crossover as a design element in my new layout but was very careful to get enough track in the loop to keep the grade to 2% including vertical easements. When finished it will take up a lot of room and will require an access hatch to get a reasonable reach everywhere. Conclusion- crossovers are cool but take a whole lot more area than you would think.
Your drawings aren’t completely scaled but I am struggling to see how the grades could be less than 3%, especially on the inside track. Also there is no room in the design for straight level track so the turnouts will all be on a steep grade. To me, both of these are big concerns.
If I was going to work a crossover into a small layout area I would start with a “double loop” concept instead of a figure 8. If you can get the inner loop big enough to have less than 2-1/2" grade then you should be able to get enough track on the outer loop for some straight and level runs which would help with yard area and sidings. Think about it…
Yes I actually been doing some more research and been thinking of making some modifications. I been having a lengthy conversation with CTR Valley and he’s been giving me a lot of advice. One such idea is to eliminate the over and under and just have a double crossover which I really like if I decide to go that route. Though the double crossover is pretty expensive (LHS $95 ea) Ouch!!! That will eliminate the grade issues right there and the layout will be on one level. Also I thought about placing scenic dividers down the middle so that it appears the train is going somewhere since 11x7 isn’t that big for HO scale or having really tall scenery such as trees buildings, etc to help hide the other side of the layout. As far as the turnouts are concerned he mentioned having tangent tracks to eliminate the turnouts going into or out of "S"curves especially if i’m going to keep the over and under concept. As far as access goes I plan on having a minimum 18’’ inches from the wall to get on the other side like with my current layout My only real concern is really the turnouts on grades as I’m trying to see if I can fix that???
I forgot to add also that I most likely will be decreasing the radius curves on both main lines so that the maximum outer curve is 24’’ and the inner would be 22’’ radius. I have tested my equipment on many occasions on just 22’’ curves and they work fine. They may LOOK better on wider curves but they navigate the smaller curves just fine. The equipment I have with the exception of the Amfleet coaches and the Kato commuter cars runs fine on 18’’ curves to be honest. Don’t have nothing but 2 six axle engines right now anyways which prefer the wider curves. I have majority GE engines and a couple of switchers which are mainly 4 axle.
That’s good to hear. I agree that you can afford a tighter minimum radius to reduce other problems, especially if you go with flex and build easements into the curves and are careful to avoid S-curves. And with the area that you are working with an elevated crossover is probably not a good idea, though I would build in some manageable grade changes and bridges over streams or roads.
If you remember from your earlier thread my original layout years ago was very similar to yours, and it had the same sort of major operation issues. I finally got all the track laid down on phase 1 of my new layout a couple of months ago. I’ve had essentially no derailments caused by the layout design and my trains go up the 2% grade easily. Much better [8-|]
Be careful of the clearances required by 85 foot passenger cars on 24" and 22" curves. You may end up making the outer curve closer to 24.5" so that two passenger cars can clear each other on the curves. When you start construction, temporarily tack down two pieces of flex track along the centerlines on the plywood and check to make sure the passenger cars can clear each other.
Do this BEFORE putting down the roadbed (oops[:$]).
Real #4 turnouts are mighty tight. I’ve had trouble with 3 axle diesels shorting out in the Shinohara pre Walther’s #4s. The Atlas HO Custom Line number 4 turnouts are really closer to being a #5 and I use them all the time. I have also used Peco code 100 “small radius” turnouts successfully.
The Peco code 83 geometries are supposed to be closer to North American standards than the code 100, but I have no experience with them so have no comment or recommendation…
