I’m new here, and new to model trains in general. Played with them when I was a kid, but looking at getting more seriously into the hobby. Anyway, I’ve been working on a layout plan and wanted to get some feedback. I plan to build it in 3-4 phases as I can get time / money for it. I plan to use the Kato N scale Unitrack.
Phase 1 - Mainline loop. Just a basic set of loops to watch the trains go around initially.
Phase 2 - Inner and Outer branch lines
Phase 3 - Staging Yard
Phase 4 - Elevated Mainline
3D views
I haven’t done any of the scenery yet as you can see, but just thinking about the plan layout itself. Will it work, will it be entertaining to operate, etc. I mainly like passenger trains, but will probably do at least one freight train on the outer loop possibly. I have a number of longer passenger trains already with 6-10 cars in the consist.
Here is the SCARM layout if anybody is interested.
Welcome to the forum. If your interests run to watching lots of trains orbiting, it should work out fine.
In the same space and amount of track others might opt for an active switching yard and industrial switching, but that’s entirely up to you, of course.
It seems that trains from your staging yard can only go in one direction around the ovals without backing – but maybe I’m just not seeing it. In the space you have, it should be possible to set it up so that trains could move in either direction from the staging yard without backing.
Where the end curves feed directly into a double-crossover, you have potentially troublesome s-curves when set to crossover.
Welcome to the forums and back to the hobby!! [#welcome]
I would agree with Byron (cuyama), who is far more experienced than I am, when he mentions that most of the action will involve watching trains circle the layout. Like he says, that’s fine especially for passenger trains, but if you were to add in some spurs and a few industries it would give you something to do with your freight cars other than just run them in circles. That is assuming that you are going to model a mixed freight train. If you are running unit trains watching them go through the layout is fine but it might get a little repetitive over time.
I also agree with Byron’s suggestion to add in a reversing track that would allow you to run trains in both directions without having to back up. That might be easier said than done given the current track plan. Maybe you could fit a line just above the yard and have it run west from the bottom of the center loop to connect with the inner branchline on the left headed north. Could be tight.
I’m going to do a little guessing here, but one other thing I noticed is that it appears that you intend to use the inner and outer branch lines on the bottom of the layout as sidings, perhaps for passenger stations. I’m guessing that simply based on the way you have offset the branchline tracks. The potential problem occurs when you want to move trains from the branchlines to the mainlines. You have to travel through the ‘sidings’ to get from one to the other. If you have a train parked on one of the sidings you are blocking the crossover from the branchline to the mainline. You can solve the problem by simply switching the turnouts on either end of the sidings from left to right or vise versa. That would, however, require the train to make an extra trip around the branchline to get into the siding from the main. Maybe I’m way out to lunch on my assumptions.
I think you have too many loops doing the same thing. The scenery is going to be very challenging also. I would suggest a layout with a double mainline that wanders and curves around and back to a main yard. I would also try to incorporate a hidden staging yard somewhere for train storage. Both yards should be thru yards to avoid having to back into the spaces. You may end up needing less track but a more pleasing layout to look at and operate.
What about this? I reversed the crossings at the main junction, added a double sided yard, and took out one line on the inner branch line to add an industry location for pickups (though it may be a bit short).
Hmm… ok I’ll keep that in mind. For the scenery, I was planning on doing a city layout, possibly adding some trams going around the city in the future, but some good ideas I’ll have to think about. I’m looking at a more modular layout, something that may not be permanent. It may not look as authentic when it is complete, but just looking for something that can be setup and/or moved if need be but still interesting to operate. At some point I’d like to model a shipping port with an operational crane, but that is a ways down the road.
The Cajob Pass layout looks pretty interesting. Might have to see if I can adapt it.
This version adds a new S-curve at the lower right corner and potentially troublesome ones at the lower left-hand corner. They might work OK, but not the best design for reliability.
Your staging yard still can send trains out onto the ovals in only one direction without backing, unless I am missing something.
Personally, I might take a break from CAD and think about what you’d like the trains to be able to do, then work from that to create a design. But if your interests run to mostly trains orbiting the ovals (which is fine), then this may be close to what you want to build.
While that’s a classic, the grades are already pretty steep and will be steeper with Unitrack because of the extra clearance needed for track with roadbed built-in. More importantly, the fixed radii and size of Unitrack sections will not match up well with the varied radii and handlaid turnouts of the Armstrong design if simply scaled down.
I think you may be missing something. The 4th track from the right (along vertical axis of drawing) allows trains to exit in clockwise direction. The 4th track from left (also along the vertical axis of drawing) allows trains to exit CCW.
There is no way to reverse the direction of a train. Once it is on the layout it will always run CW or CCW. There is nothing wrong with that if its what you want. Just something to consider.
Before doing any additional layout design ‘planning’, I would suggest you purchase and study John Armstrong’s ‘Track Planning for Realistic Operation’. It’s a treasure trove of hows/whys of layout design.
Heh heh… I am in the middle of that book now, along with a number of others in the series. Maybe I’ll have to wait until I finish it before finalizing on a plan. I understand what some of you are saying about the limitations of unitrack vs hand laid track, but just getting back into the hobby, I don’t want to take on more than I can handle for a first layout.
I played around a little bit more adding a couple more industrial spurs, and a turn-table for the locomotives. But sounds like I’ll have to work on the yard a bit more and have a better way to get trains in and out in either direction a little easier.
One specific question though, is the switching at the bottom done correctly now for getting trains on and off the mainline and the inner / outer lines?
Most experienced model railroaders find that having more than two trains moving at the same time can be more destracting than fun. It looks like you are trying to fill the layout with many moving trains. A layout only needs no more than a double tracked mainline to have two trains moving at the same time.
If your goal is to have one or two trains move through different scenes, having several loops of tracks bundled inches together wont’ accomplish that…from a visual standpoint. You will need to reduce the number of loops, and allow room for scenery in order to convey the sense of the trains moving a long distance.
To keep up their interest for more than a few minutes, many modelers want the trains to accomplish something, like moving cars over a distance, or switching them into industries. Just like real railroads, each track should accomplish something different than another track.
One thought on how to marry that thought with your plan:
Using your plan, I would reduce the amount of loops. Pare it down to a double-tracked loop around the table. That allows two trains to move simultaneously. The inner yard and loop can be thought of as an industrial park, where an outer loop train drops a cut of cars in the yard, and then a switching loco picks up the cars from the yard and delivers the cars around the inner loop to various industries. You’ll need to possibly add a couple of spurs coming off of the loop, but that should be esay enough.
This is just a suggestion for how to adapt your current plan to fit into the concept of every track having a purpose. Mainlines, yards, branch line, spurs.
If you don’t want the branch line and spurs part, and simly want to watch trains orbit (which is fine, its called more of a “railfanning” type of layout) then you really don’t need 4 or 5 loops doing the same thing. A simple double tracked mainline leaving plenty of room for scenery will convey the idea
How do you plan to reach the center part of the layout to correct derailments, clean track, vacuum dust, etc? 3ft is a long reach for just about everyone (assuming you can access 4 sides of the layout. Your layout design will become a maintenance nightmare if you can only access 3 or less sides.
The addition of a longest-car-length straight section (and/or adjusting the position of the crossovers and double-crossovers) would solve most of them, and there is room overall.
That would seem logical. The N scale 4X8 out-and-back layout below is similar to some ideas in Armstrong’s book. (This yard is single-ended, but it wouldn’t require much modification of the layout to make it double-ended). Even with two independent ovals for trains to orbit, there is room for scenery, industries, etc.
This layout is found toward the bottom of this web page that explains the concept. It’s designed using flextrack and off-the-shelf turnouts and could be reworked for Unitrack.
I don’t see anyone arguing that you should go to handlaid track. I was only pointing out that the layout that was recommended to you by someone else couldn’t be built as drawn in the same relative space with Unitrack.
You still have S-curves, just in case that is what you are trying to address. Here’s an example.
A break from CAD while working on determining what you’d like to do with and see on your layout might be worthwhile.
And as others have mentioned, if you can’t walk all the way around your layout, 4-feet-wide will likely prove to
