I am working on a plan for a new layout. HO Scale. 24 ft by 20 Ft. Minimum radius on mainline is 26 inches. The yard is built with#5 Micro enginering ladder system turn outs. Left side of yard features maintenance facilities. Right side of yard has servicing tracks (Fuel Sand etc.) There are several local buisnesses for switching in and out. At some point I would like to run a California Zephyr. I know the turns are a little tight but only so much space available. Additionally where the 2 tracks end at the bottom they will enter tunnel portals and head to undertrack staging on a 2% grade. The track is all flat. I will use terrain changes to get some verticle intrest to the layout. Looking for any feedback. Thanks.
With this much space, I’d have to have a drop bridge to connect the lower left and the lower right. You have not crammed too much into your layout, I wonder if you have enough? The yard, which looks good, consumes a lot of space.
I was afraid I was trying to put too much in. There are a couple more buisness in the area that could go in. In staging there will be a connection to make a full loop for when I just want to run trains. The geography of the Prototype is very point to point and linear. so I didn’t want to connect the 2 ends as they are actually 40 miles apart.
The CZ should run on 26" radius with no issues as long as your track work is pretty perfect. I have a friend who runs his CZ on my layout including some 24" radius in one area. Does it look right? Not really as the passenger cars overhang. If you can squeak out 28" for your mainline in some places, that would help. I do like your track plan, well done.
Add another voice for slightly wider curves. I have 28" min R on my layout. I worked through my first run CZ set when they were first released and wrote up what I did to get them running reliably on 28" R. See: http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/p/54626/2142460.aspx
A couple of inches doesn’t seem like much, but can be very aggravating when you’re already all the way towards the minimum.
The yard is large, but doesn’t dominate, so works for me.
The S-curves you have going into the turnaround blobs on the peninsula and lower left will create problems for a passenger train at speed. Especially with a 26" radius.
After reading Carl’s post, I spent some time looking. It seems like all along the lay out, he’s sacrificing easement space in order to keep the tracks parallel to the edge.
I’d push things back to allow better easements, and not worry about being straight with the edge. It would make a more interesting view.
Same with the peninsula, that loop on the end should start back farther, making a better easement on both top and bottom.
And the lower left, why the S curve? just run it straight off the top curve to the end, the bottom corner. It doesn’t return anyway, it just ends. That might make space for a run-a-round siding, for moving freight back and forth.
I’m NOT a track planner, just checking it out, adding my [2c] worth.
Mike.
EDIT: On a point to point, with no return loops, what do you with the train at the end? Just pick it up off the tracks, and put it away? I could see freight movement, using run-a-rounds, and making loads for the return trip, but what about the CZ?
In the lower range of curve radii, such as the twenties, a couple of inches make a big difference. It may be that the OP was thinking hey, the BLI recommended minimum radius is 22 inches so 26 should be fine. Sometimes manufacturers recommend unrealistic minimums; it may be that the cars can physically make it around 22 inches - the trucks can do it even with the full length side skirts etc., but as Mike commented, even 26 inches may be pushing your luck from a practical stand point.
Anyway, the point is, “pushing it” with sharp curves can reveal problems if operators want to run long rolling stock such as 85’ passenger cars or 89’ auto racks and TOFC flat cars etc. Those may look awkward even on 36 inch curves, as i found out, but they will operate smoothly. The trick is to find the maximum curve radii you can fit.
In the space presented, it my be that 30 inch curves can be fitted into the space keeping the overall track plan intact, but modifying it somewhat. IMO, 30-inches should kind of be a minimum for a layout that big, and should be possible in a space that large. In the space I have I’ve opted to push it slightly higher for 32 inch minimums at the sacrifice of some narrow benchwork and aisle but doable. Some curves can be higher in some parts of the layout.
I’ve read some articles which mention that for asthetic purposes, it’s pr
I agree. The track plan shown looks like it could have reverse loops to allow for turning trains back. Or the ends could go down to staging underneath. There is certainly ability to accommodate continuous running or turnaround.
He already said that is his plan in the first post.
I don’t usually reply to plan specifics, but there are a number of concerns/opportunities here. I would certainly explore a two-blob (turnback curve) footprint rather than three. There are some S-curve concerns, including one apparently at the upper right leading into the freight yard. The yard itself could probably be arranged a bit more efficiently. It does seem to be a lot of modeled yard for the modeled industries, but without knowing the specific location to be modeled and the type of operation planned, that may not apply.
To the Original Poster, good luck with your layout.
Actually I didn’t add the under track staging level. Both end continues the curve and run along the wall to staging under the yard end of the layout. There will also be a section connecting those to form a continuous loop for when I just want to watch trains run.
This is exactly why I posted this here. I appreciate all the advice. Construction wont begin for a year so this is kind of a 4ough draft. I did intend to shift things a little to create easements. SCARM doesn’t really lend itself to easement creation.
I get that. My thoughts were if I had a plan that I was happy and confident with, then when constructions started I could just go and maybe get the track laid faster
