I have the track laid and trains running but aways hated the 2 Crossovers. I worked on them a long time and could never get them really smooth. I also had a rather tight radius curve between the 2 Crossovers which I never liked. I like big sweeping curves and of course so do the trains.
So I decided to make some changes and get rid of the Crossovers So this is what I came up with!
Photo 1 is the original plan. Photo 2 is the new one. I can still run 2 trains continously while I work the yards with a switcher. Actually, now I can go between the two yards with a switcher whereas before I couldn’t when running both trains
What is your goal for the layout/track plan? The only one you mention in your description is to have 2 trains running (unattended? or will there be other operators?) while you switch with a third.
Although your design does answer that desire, I think there are better ways to achieve what you say are seeking. Specifically:
If the layout is placed in a corner, access is going to be a nightmare. I am assuming you are using 2 4x8 sections as a starting point for the benchwork. Nobody I know can reach across 4ft to construct, repair, or rerail trains - and a requirement not to knock things over or lean on the front of the layout makes it even more difficult. The sweeping curve in front will put the back corner more than 4ft away. If you add a 2ft aisle along the back and the ends, the true space for the layout becomes 12 x 16. A doughnut style layout in that same 12 x16 would probably give you much more of what you said you wanted in the same space, with the only access issue being a duck-under, lift-out, or swing-away section for access to the center pit. Another alternative design that improves access is the water wings shape with the center section being much narrower than the sections at the turnback loops.
A 4ft width limits you to 22" radius curves on the outer loop, and about 19" on the inner. These are hardly sweeping curves unless you are operating models of 19th century equipment. Again, the doughnut shape, even if one end is reduced to 6ft width, would let you have a 3ft wide center pit, 18" wide shelves on either side, and 30"+ radius curves if you wanted.
Switching is generally much more fun when it’s up front and personal. The present design has two (high speed?) trains continually passing in front of you while you are trying to switch the interior of the layout. What form of uncoupling will you use? Will it require reaching in between the cars with a skewer or pick? Or does i
Fred’s suggestions are right on the money. It might be that you need to do a little more thinking and studying now to bring your ultimate goals into focus. I suggest reading my “Beginner’s Guide to Layout Design” if you have not done so.
Hi. I can’t add much to what has been said, but if it adds some credence to what Fred and Chip are saying, I also had the immediate impression that this is a rudimentary, and doomed-to-have-a-short-life plan. It is “interesting”, as in involved, but it is not user-friendly from the point of view of what a real railroad would have in the way of trackage in the yards. No switching run-arounds, from what I can see, and this is one of the very most important elements in a yard and in spur tracks. And, heck yes, engines have to have a handy run onto the turntable. And an exit, too.
Also, you had gotten to the point where you had come to detest the two crossings…if I understand you correctly. Too bad! I found that to be a very interesting element on my last layout, the one 90 deg crossing over my main. It meant I had to be on my toes to get the intersection clear when the Limited was due. [:D] So, assuming you are willing to give up a bit of ownership of plan #2, you might find that reintroducing one such crossing will give you room for some added features…just a thought.
Fred’s warnings about access…if you do nothing else, heed that advice.
The other posters have well-stated just about all that can be said.
I would like to add a note about reverse polarity when you leave the mainline and go through the turntable area and then reappear on the mainline.
When doing so, your engineer will not be a happy fella once you attempt to re-enter the mainline going in the opposite direction…unless you have the necessary equipment to automatically (or manually) reverse the track polarity.
YES, You are all !00 % correct in your observations and suggestions. But keep in mind that I am very limited in Space. I would love a big yard with run around tracks and a ladder etc. I almost did a point to point with a max 3 foot reach but I love to watch trains run continuously. By the way, I should add that I have DCC. I know a point to point on two walls would have resulted in more realism and I am sure, less work, but this is my last layout and I am taking my time building it.
Also, it was built in 4 sections, bolted together so if I did move, I can take it with me.
Yes, I have trouble reaching the far corner so I have to get up on the table which is no problem as I built it strong with 4 inch foam on top. and yes, I will eventually have switch machines for all the turn outs.
Yes, the yards suck but I did what I had to do with the limited space. I didn’t want the layout to take up the whole room which is small to begin with. I am in a 2 bedroom Condo in Florida and this is the second bedroom.
Hope this answers some of your questions! Thanks for the good comments,
I understand that you feel stuck with the configuration that you have. Given that what you have shown us is the maximum space you have and for what ever reason you cannot come up with a shelf layout that still has continuous running (many do), you don’t have to settle for yards that don’t work or sidings that are unswitchable. You just have to learn what you need to learn and apply it.
If you have to climb on your layout, you severely limit the scenery and structures you can use on the layout. If watching trains run on bare foam is your goal, that is not an issue. If I spent a week making a structure look good, I don’t want to climb (or reach) anywhere it can get damaged. This is solveable. All these “problems” are solvable.
at least for now, you are sticking with what you have
you have real access issues already
Some recommendations I have based on the above:
You are going to need some 18" x 18" access holes (bigger if you are a wide body) so you have no part of the layout more than 30-36" from an access hole or the aisle. Don’t cut them before you complete the track plan, but they have to be allowed for in the plan. Your benchwork system may limit where these access holes can be placed, so this has to be kept in mind while developing the plan. They do not have to be symmetric or on the centerline or square unle
In the big picture, the building of the benchwork is a very small part, both in time and money invested. To live with it just because it is done, is well, throwing good money after bad. I am assuming that you are not 100% satisfied with what you have done so far.
I made that mistake in my track selection. I had invested over $200 in 17 turnouts. Before I put them in place, I was warned about them by people here. I even knew they were right. But since I already had my plan and I had already spent the money, I decided to move forward. I have regretted it ever since. Each time I have had a problem with the track, it had cost me much time and money. I should have bitten the bullet and made the course correction early.
I too have a very small room to work with. My original plan was 2 4’x8’ layed out to form a “L”. After listening to the great advice in here, I decided to re-work my plan (I already had the benchwork built), reconstruct my benchwork from ground up, and came up with a plan to fit a small room.
My room is 9’10" x 10’10" and I have a continuous run + staging around-the-walls design. It has double track main in some areas, and single track in the rest, and a 3% grade. The depth of each section is only 24".
Don’t shy away from tearing up the benchwork to construct new, if it allows for you to get more of what you want out of a track plan. A few new screws, and your benchwork will be new. In the long run, while you may not be immediately able to run your trains, you will applaud your decision with many many night of great operations.
By the way, I tore my first layout down within 4 months of starting it.
And I regretted my haste within about two months of completing my first layout. It was fun doing it, I had lots of enthusiasm, I did a good job…for a first effort…, and I enjoyed being able to run trains when it was all said and done. The regrets and forehead slaps came soon after. Then, I read up on layout design, and flattened my forehead some more.
I still don’t have it right with this layout, but I am miles ahead. As the others urge you to do, stop now, learn a bit, and then go back to stare at what you have. I am pretty sure…we are quite sure…that you will elect to start over. At the very least, you can look for places to assure yourself of access and frame them in now. Then, with what is left, draw a new plan that has longevity and variety built in. You will still have the enthusiasm, only more now that you have it all pegged, and you will have a much better experience over the long term. In fact, assuming you can salvage little of the materials you have assembled, I’ll bet new lumber will be another $30-$50, tops. That is dirt cheap for the benefit of getting a vastly superior trackplan that you will be stuck with for many, many months.
THANK YOU for your thoughtful suggestions , comments and advise. especially Fred who I am sure spent alot of time and thought with his posts. and Chris. I have stopped everything and am now staring as suggested by Chris lol (I think it was Chris)