I had some “negotiations” go on as to where to put my layout and how big to make it. I have the benchwork of the main part of the layout built and ready (the 3x9 portion), but to get a little more variety in the plan and still meet the main objective (to have trains run in a mountain scene with bridges and tunnels for the kids) I will add an 18" deep, three foot shelf to the one part. This made me revisit my plan as this opened up other possibilities. Here is what I came up with. Please comment as you feel lead…
I think it looks pretty good. The only thing “funny” I see is the “tunnel” in the center of the upper loop. I don’t understand how the lower track will not also have to be in a tunnel at that point.
The “plan” looks pretty good to me. At the end of the day, it’s your railroad, and therefore, your choice. While there are no guarantees going in, proper planning goes a long way toward achieving the desired result in any layout. Happy railroading!!
Yeah, I thought of that, too. I think the front piece will also have to be in a tunnel but I didn’t go back and correct it before I posted it. Thanks for the input.
The 3 places where the tracks cross, at one show 0 and the other elevation is 2.5". Your grades are already steep and I don’t think you have enough rail to rail height separation. You should be more like 3". Remember you still need something under the track, plywood subroadbed, bridge girders etc. If the grades become a problem, you can always drop the lower track before the crossing.
I notice that you have a wye in the switchyard (lower left). Make sure that you have a proper reversing circuit to handle that. Otherwise, it looks interesting.
Yes, I wanted that in there so I could turn the engines if I wished. I’ve never done a reversing circuit before, but I’m going to attempt it this time around. I’ll probably be asking for help with that at some point.
You have the wye as mentioned and can turn a train, but from your description, gradual going up. steeper going down, you seem to have planned from one direction. What are the relative grades? On my layout, I have a 3.1% in one direction and a 3.7% in the other direction. The difference is a my strongest engine gets 10+ cars up the 3.1% hill and only 4 up the 3.7%.
The yard would be much more efficient if it had a yard lead, which I think you can manage.
I haven’t seen it put quite so starkly as that, Chip. That is a substantial difference, and should help to explain that even a 0.5% increase in grade will require twice as much power to lift the train to the higher level of that grade.
I will add just a little more detail. I am rebuilding a layout after a 13 year break. I experimented with grades while constructing my mountain climbing loop (3 complete loops - still under construction). I model early steam (small engines) with short trains. Past experience told me that my equipment would handle 3% grades on straight runs (could not remember what the curve limit was). With over 130’ of curves on grade; I experimented a little to make sure that my plan would acutally work. With six wheel drive (0-6-0 and 2-6-2), on 18" curves, I found that the curves added about 1% to the actual 2% grade and would cause the steamer to spin wheels (no problem on straight track at 2.5%), My original plan was for 2+ % grades and proved to be workable by making the straight track (mostly hidded) at 2.25% and the curved track at slightly less than 2%. Larger radius curves will have less effect; however grades on curves will “always” have the effect of increasing the actual grade. Your engines and train length will have a large bearing on what you can get away with.
I really didn’t word that grade correctly. From my calculation, the “steeper” grade to the right will be 3% and the other grade will likely be 2%, but until I sit down and fiddle with a mockup I wasn’t going to define it entirely. 3% is the max grade for the layout.
As for the yard lead, what do you think would work best?
Ideally, the yard lead would emerge ahead of the turnout that constitutes the yard throat (on left between 4’ and 5’) and continue along the edge turning the corner along the top. Idealy, it should be as long as the longest yard track.
I’ll go back to the drawing board tonight and see what I can come up with there. Putting in a LH switch on the longest track there heading towards the top and extending it that way really doesn’t do any good does it? It really has to be ahead of that first turnout to be useful according to my plan, which in turn will tie up the mainline, which isn’t necessarily bad.
Forgive me, I can’t remeber the name of the track piece, but what about one of the double cross-over turnout goodies where the yard comes off the main.
The double crossover? That would be another possibility. I will maybe try that one tonight. Here is another take on it. The lead perhaps isn’t quite long enough, but I think it will be good enough for what we’ll be running over the next several years. Here’s the new modification:
