I’ve got phase 1 benchwork ready to start cutting cookies- now I need to finalize the long-term design, or at least the part that will connect to the next phase. Since most of the center “cookie” will eventually be a town, for now I will use the area for testing before I get serious about laying down track. And I will connect at least one loop at the top temporarily so I can watch trains go 'round in circles while I am playing around with new ideas and ways of doing things.
Last time I was very dissatisfied with cork and switched to homasote, but never thought about actually gluing the tracks down which seems to be the standard method now. What is the best caulk to use- cheap latex?
Any comments on the layout? Minimum mainline radius is still 24". I’ve already learned that my locos don’t like #5 turnouts too much so most are #8 with a few #6 in some tight areas. Elevations shown are from the tops of the support joists.
S-curves concern me. If there is a straight section the length of the longest loco (or car) before the direction change then I should be safe, right? Are there any “rules of thumb” for changing direction?
Nice piece of work! And your trackplan looks like it will be a very workable configuration. If it were mine, I would likely add another siding or two, but there is really nothing wrong with the plan.
One thought, if you can increase your radius a bit, that would sure give you some extra bennies.
Oh, I assume this is HO. The #8s and #6s will be fine on the mains, but #4s can usually work well on industrial sidings.
I hate to see you sacrifice so much space for access. I would fill it in and make sure the far reaching track is bulletproof.
DAP Alex Plus acrylic latex caulk…cheap like borscht.
Spread it thinly. A bit thicker than paper thin, but not two sheets of paper. You don’t want it welling up in between the ties.
I figure a person has to work out their own track plans and learn what works and what doesn’t. I use one main, this time twinned, but the rest of the effort is strictly yard, servicing, and two industries. It keeps the spaghetti bowl effect at bay.
When I lay out a track plan, I use 3/4" masking tape to represent the tracks. Get the cheapest tape you can find.
Get the curves bang on. Then lay track temporarily and see if your rolling stock can do the curves both ways, towed and shoved. Actually lay the turnouts over their spots to ensure you aren’t overly optimistic about their angles. I am always wrong. So, I learned early to lay the turnouts, connect the tracks between them, and take a look at the results from a couple of angles. It doesn’t always go as you’d hoped.
Last tip: make sure you have variety in operations. Roundy-round, which I actually love, is great for maybe five minutes (okay, ten), but then I need some variety. Switching, turning an engine on the turntable, retrieving loads from an industry…something else besides the 120 mph stuff. So, have something else for the trains to do, and make sure all your traffic doesn’t go in the same direction at all industries. Some facing points, some trailing points.
Only problem potential I see is in the lower left of the phase 1, where 3 curves are parallel. If you’re runnign equipment that can;t make a #5 turnout, then odds are it will sideswipe unless the center spacing in that area is MUCH greater than the typical 2" for HO tangent track. I had problems with two parallel curves of 30 and 32" radius when running long cars - luckily tested and figured this out BEFORE the track was fastened down.
Speaking of - just what ARE you running that makes a 24" radius curve no problem but cannot make a #5 turnout, which has a closure rail radius (the sharpest point of the turnout) of 26"?
Other than one or two for maybe a visual effect, I’d really skip the #8’s, they are astronomically huge compared to 24" radius curves, and take up a LOT of valuable space. Anything that can take a 24" radius curve should be able to hit a #6 at warp speed.
Yes this is HO. You are right smaller turnouts would be fine for sidings where I don’t plan on running a big loco through them, not sure how much that will help me with my design though. I need to take another look.
Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I have been very resistant to going less than 24" anywhere- a lesson learned years back. And I wish I could go even bigger. But given the area that I am working with the 24" minimum pretty much means a winding, looping sort of layout with limited room for industries and sidings. Actually that’s fine with me- everyone is different and I am more into terrain, building and detailing than actually operating. But it would be nice to be able to get a better spur into the center section of phase 1. And the actual access area will be as small as it can be (once I figure out what that is) and planning to build a removable hatch with scenery attached.
I actually looked at caulk at the hardware store- way too much selection. So appreciate advice on what is known to actually work well. Yes I remember laying down track was a bit “artsy”. Designing on the computer and then transferring it directly to the layout really looks like it should take out a bunch of the guesswork though. I already confirmed that the full-scale printouts match the Walthers turnouts perfectly, and played around with a few lengths of track and turnouts using the printed templates on my workbench. So I feel pretty confident that I can get the pattern on the board. But we will see if my skills with a soldering iron have improved. Another topic…
Randy- the spacing on the parallel curves is 2-1/2" for exactly the reason you mention.
I am testing with a Bachman H4 2-6-6-2, Alco FA2/FB2 diesel construct, and 65’ Concor passenger cars. I figured that these would be about worst-case for what I want to run. I think the problem with comparing a #5 turnout compared with a 24" curve is that there is no built-in easement. So even though the radius is actually a little larger, the front wheels on the big steam engine pull way out from center right when they get to the frog because the engine is still oriented along the straight run. The diesels also worked noticeably harder to get through but not nearly as much of a problem.
No derailments at all testing with #6 turnouts and I plan to use them where it helps with space- the turnout that you mention on the lower left side of phase 1 is a #6.
I appreciate the critical view- can’t help but feel there is something out there I am missing.
Ahh, yes, yard operation. I am a modeler, not a railroad buff, and admit I don’t know much about how real railroads are run. Given the relatively small area for a “large-style” layout trade-offs are definitely a factor, and yards can take up a lot of straight-run area. But there is plenty of time to make changes on that end of the plan. If I get really enthusiastic I could expand further- the room goes another 10’ or so and opens up at the right in an L-shape. So I could run the yard lead around the mountain loop and build a big yard off the bottom. Or move the mountain loop down 10’ and make room for a nice yard in-between. But I have other hobbies going on in there too so would have to get very enthusiastic to give the RR any more real estate.
What I have right now are two big loops with some interconnections that double as “passing sidings”. A bit of a spaghetti bowl, but I don’t want to give up on the elevated loop and crossover. These features always have big visual impact and last time I found them most fun to model- even though I learned that building elevation with acceptable grades takes up a lot amount of area and complicates things a bunch. Any suggestions how to maintain these features and make more room for more sidings and yard without expanding the size of the layout would be appreciated.
You really don’t have two separate loops. That is to say, you couldn’t put two trains out there an let them orbit without throwing switches for each train on each orbit. I don’t see an easy way of fixing it so it truly is two loops either. Both loops share the track between the switch nearest the words “Phase 2” and the switch at coordinates 14-5. Not that that is a problem. Just so you understand the capabilities of the railroad. If you were counting on two trains hands free, you are going to be disappointed.
Your yard could be improved greatly by adding a right hand switch between the yard switches and the engine track switch (right over the joint between ph 2 and ph 3) and running a track next to the aisle. I would extend it all the way to the straight section next to the aisle at coordinates 13-5 and tie back in with a left hand switch.
I would also remove the “hole” in the track between the crossover by the yard and the switch nearest to the words “Phase 1”. The track starts at 1 7/8, goes down to 1 5/8 then back up to 2".
Very observant! Yes you are right. Because there is a crossover on one end of the loop there would have to be a crossover on the other end to keep the loops isolated. But there is no simple way to make this happen- so the shared section of track acts like a crossover. Also if you look at it some more you will see that the turnouts can be set to alternate between the loops without ever running on the same track. Not done on purpose, just worked out that way. But there is no way to run two trains completely hands-off with the current design and I would have to make major changes in order to make it possible.
Also very observant on the “hole”. I have ideas on terrain features and will play with subtle grade changes to complement - figure that it will be more obvious once I get the cookies cut and some track down. But I agree that the hole is questionable and certainly not necessary.
Given the above observations I’ll take your word for it that adding another track section next to the aisle would help yard operations.
All-in-all some good suggestions by everyone and it gives me some ideas to play with. Tonight I am going to try gluing some track down onto roadbed with caulk. I have a bunch of brass Atlas track that I used years ago- some if it even has the old stapled cardboard ties. I wouldn’t try to run trains on it but it should be good for testing.
The short cuts are way to short to hold a train and are not needed at all. Though the plan already is track heavy adding a second passing siding would not be bad. I would prefer a shortcut to create an out and back.
A longer run-around near the yard is almost mandatory. Though the mainline is very long, which is great, the layout only allows one train at a time which is IMHO a prize to high.
I think you are looking at it differently than me (and others) in that the shortcuts actually help form two loops that are joined by a common 3’ length of track. But I take your point about not being able to run two trains hands-off which has already been mentioned several times.
Working in a restricted area is all about trade-offs. Here is a version that truly has two independent mainline loops, and the mountain/bridge loop around the mine is essentially a “shortcut” between them. But it makes the layout even more track-heavy, adds complexity to terrain/grading around the mountain especially at the lower tunnel exits, and further complicates getting any additional sidings into the plan. Is it worth it?- hard to say. Eliminating the mountain/bridge loop would certainly open things up but this is a strong visual feature I really want to retain. Though I guess I could make it lead only to the mine operation and skip the rest of the loop-around, assuming I kept the “new” outer mainline track in the plan
Anyway the important thing is that none of the discussion changes phase 1, and I am a long way off from starting benchwork for phase 2. So plenty of time to think about it, play around, and come back to it later.
Some of you guys are tough! Hopefully that just means you are taking a real interest.
Why are you doubting some posters? I never have (OK very seldom) seen badly meant postings on here.
It took me some time to see your vision, I added mine as a second drawing. It is a matter of taste, whether you opt for a longish main or for two ovals. From a dispatcher’s point of view the common part is surely interesting.
The terminal can be used as an interchange, so operationally your plan will work great; though I would add a passing siding near the mine. The terminal lead (also brown in my first drawing) can function as a passing siding as well. With 3 passing sidings two-train operation seems possible also on the longish-main alternative.
Wow! I really appreciate the time you spent on this- with your drawings you did a much better job of describing my vision on operations than I have.
Now you can see why adding the track to form two totally separate loops may not really add much value to the plan, since there are already two built-in modes of operation. And I am not convinced that adding to the “spaghetti bowl” just to be able to run two trains totally hands-off adds that much value.
But my thinking going in was that adding more well-placed sidings and optimizing the yard design would help. Are you talking about putting a passing siding on the upper loop around the mine? That could be done, although the grade would likely be a bit steep. I might be able to work one in on the elevated flat portion around the upper left corner and across the bridge though.
Some of the comments here on yard design/operation have been intriguing but to be honest I don’t fully understand some of them. The layout I built years ago was just a 4x8 and it did not have a yard. And as mentioned earlier I am not a railroad buff so don’t understand all the terms being used with terminal operations. So some simplified discussion around that area would also help.
I too am a modeler first and not a railroad buff. However, when you run trains, they should model what the real railroads do. That is why I freelance and don’t model any specific railroad.
Here is the problem(?) as I see it. Most modelers build a layout where they can run trains around and around. But very soon that can get boring. Then they want to get into operations where they want to do some switching. Even later their knowledge grows and they start thinking about Prototype Operations. Then they discover that the track plan they have is not very friendly to that. The time to get it right is now, before you start laying track. It wouldn’t take much to make it more operations friendly. I am going to recommend that you check this link out. http://www.waynes-trains.com/site/Operations/Operations.html For now, don’t concern yourself with what type of system to use, but look at the different track arrangements that are diagrammed in the PDF articles. These are very simple changes that you can make now that will enhance operations later.
I took a look at the link Elmer, and while nothing is really new it does put it into some perspective. And I have been thinking of ordering the Track Planning for Realistic Operation book- in fact I have it waiting in my Amazon shopping cart. Still, I know I am more of a modeler than an operator (same for another hobby, RC airplanes- I really enjoy the months spent planning and building a big scale warbird more than actually flying it!)
I think it is really very good, especially for a free program. Some find it a bit tricky, but if you already know how to draw in Autocad then it takes no time at all to catch on to it.
I read the whole article- not sure about the comparison to strip poker (lol) but a good read and all the discussion did motivate me to make a couple of changes.
I am still concentrating on phase 1 since I hope to begin laying track for it very soon. I moved the straight section for the station into the corner so that I could attach a spur to it per preferred RR design- put spurs off passing sidings. Its actually a better location for my station anyway. Putting a turnout there goes against my principle of putting all turnouts within easy reach, but I should at least be able to get to any derailments from the rounded end of the layout without opening the access panel. Of course the changes also have me re-thinking grading of the area…
I also added another lead-in track to the yard per suggestion made earlier, though building this area is still “way down the road”. I played around with working in a passing siding on the elevated portion but have not come up with anything yet that fits well and adds real value. But still plenty of time to finalize this too.
One issue, I tried laying down two sections of track in a 23" radius on a test board. The cork went down nicely using the Alex Plus. And to my surprise I had absolutely no problem soldering the two sections of track and forming a nice curve. But the Walthers track did not stick to the Alex Plus like the old Atlas track that I tested a few days ago. Maybe there is excess mold release in the plastic ties? So I pulled it up, sanded the caulk off the roadbed with a belt sander, and plan to try again after roughing up the bottom of the ties a bit and wiping them down with acetone. Also use a bit more of the caulk?
Thinking ahead to the next step- who makes the easiest ballast to use? I never did like that part of the job, the ballast I used “back then” wanted to ball up so it was a slow process to get it down nicely even with detergent
