Second stab at PRW track plan... need some assistance

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

Modelers, I need help. I realized my last plan was all big swirly curves, just to get a folded dogbone into this tiny, wacky space. There was no room for switching. I’m just learning about switching operations – had no clue about runarounds, drill tracks, team tracks, etc. I studied Turtle Creek and the Virginian as some of you suggested (thanks) and after watching some operations videos, I’ve scrapped the first plan and started over. I’ve tried to do less here, and it’s mostly working, but I’m stuck.

First, here’s what’s going okay:

  1. I replaced my too-clever dogbone mainline with a simple boring oval (in red here); I gotta have continuous run, if only to be able to have the longer freights come in from “somewhere else” to drop a cut of cars, or to back a passenger train into the station in the yard. Mainline radius on the north curve is 24", about 26" on the south curve. I know that passenger cars won’t look great but hopefully they won’t derail.


2) An extension to the loop (green here) runs west out of the yard under the town, reconnecting to the mainline north of the town. Radius here is 18" so only freights can duck out this way.

  1. A siding is in blue at the top of the mainline. This is where non-local trains will drop a cut of cars.

  2. The yard (also in blue) is not a must have, but the shape of that lower edge just screams to be filled with parallel stub tracks, so I get a small yard without even trying.

  3. The branch (in orange) took a long time to figure out. I wanted to get up out of the oval into the “town” extension at lower left, but I didn’t want it to look like a ramp, so I finally decided to go outside, which works well topographically and also because I can come out of the yard and onto the Priest River branch without fouling the main.

2

Makes way more sense than your first plan. A simple oval is fine, no need for a complex mainline stuffed into a space. With a small layout, your sense of distance is going to require imagination anyway. If you want the towns to be 5 miles apart, do 5 laps around the oval. If they are 20 miles apart, do twenty laps. Its okay if the scenery repeats itself. Give the rivers and creeks new names each time you cross them.

I like the branch line idea.

Refresh my memory, how many sides do you have access to?

What I would want to do, is to be able to take a train out of the lower yard, head to the main line, do 5 or 50 laps around the oval, then head up the branch line to the other town and deliver/swap out. As it stands, the turnout that heads to the branch requires a backup maneuver to get to the branch line, or, you’ve got an alternative route but it passes through the town.

To be able to go right from the oval to the branch line, you could put a curved turnout in the oval at 5 oclock so that it connects to the green line, thereby by passing the town. The virginaian used a curved turnout in this manner I think, or used it in a very important place.

The pillars of the layout would be the lower yard, the branch line, and the upper town, all with sufficient radius to run the longest equipment. Maybe that means 26 radius everywhere. Once those three areas are designed properly, with proper radius to handle the equipment and for proper operation, then work on filling in the blanks with other stuff, if you still have room. If you don’t have room, then don’t force things.

As far as passenger ops. The main town could serve as two towns, A and B, the origination and destination. You could restrict passenger cars to the oval, and run cars from “a” to “b” by doing laps. That way you could keep the radius of the branch line tighter if you had too, a

3

I like it, it kinda reminds of the twice-around.

Too bad you couldn’t stretch the length out, so that hidden track with the 18"r. could be strtched into a 22" or 24" radius.

I think adding any track to the inside space would just clutter it up.

If you have access to all sides, maybe use view blocks in the middle.

Mike.

4

You are still trying to do too much. Peopl,e that run modern cars and anything passenger are talking larger radius. Your drawing dosen’t show the whole space, this is important as sometimes even an inch changes things.

5

Agreed. If OP bended the branchline more to take up more of the middle, he could swing the town more at 90 degrees and open up the lower corner for lengthier tracks in the lower town. Essentially giving up another switching district in the middle of the plan, that he doesn’t need, for better/more space for what he has now.

6

deleted

7

I took a quick look at the plan. Four things:

  1. The tunnel at 9 o’clock (or south west) will be difficult to access if there are derailments or track maintenance to do. You could make an access window from the other room.

  2. Upper level: I would make sure there are no slopes on the yard or the turnout leading to it.

  3. 7 o’clock: I would not bother with a return track for such a short siding. Also, plan for reliable and well thought out uncouplers as that track will be difficult to reach.

  4. 5 o’clock: those switches look tight - not sure they will fit. For areas that are difficult to reach, I keep things really simple…

Simon

8

Hi Matt,

First, I wouldn’t worry about whether or not you are trying to do ‘too’much’. What consists of ‘too much’ is very subjective. There are no rules. Its your railroad. If you want to do switching then you need someplace to switch!

As was mentioned, we don’t know what sides you have access to and which sides are up against a wall. I can see the wall on the left. Where are the other walls?

You said that you want to do something in the center. My layout is similar in size (5’4"x12’). I have reserved the center of the layout for a city scene but I have been able to add tracks which are closer to the center and which provide lots of switching opportunities. My layout is open on all four sides. If your layout is not open on the right side you still might be able to fit something similar around the access hatches.

Eventually I will have a yard on the upper left which will extend several feet beyong the layout.

Dave

9

Thank you all for such great, specific feedback. Here are some answers and responses.

@Douglas
There’s good or bad access to all sides except the town’s West edge, where those five feet touch the wall. Otherwise it’s open all around, but a tough pinch to get into NW corner viewing spot (that’s a climb-under) b/c of heavy semi-permanent steel shelving. There’s no easy place to move that to.
The space is a half of a 2-car garage. Ish. The whole east side is open to access, but expansion that way is prohibited by a post holding up the house and access to the car.

Nice.
Thanks for so many specific ideas. I didn’t quite grok the A-B operation. Where would A and B be here? Is one of them in the yard?

@Mike
I would LOVE to be able to have more length here, but as it is the garage door will come up when my wife comes and goes in her car and hang over the north half of the layout, and the cold Northwest air will blow in. I’m lucky the rain generally slants the other way in these parts.
View blocks, yes. Still considering separating the town above from the yard below with a divider, could also continue it up the middle if I ditched the access holes. That would help the topographical logic.

Sorry, rrbell, that’s twice I’ve failed to include a plan of the whole garage. I’ll try to supply one soon. Really, only the wall along the West side is a hard edge, and I could take an inch in any other direction if I wanted, but the layout already fouls daily garage functions, and some of this is a matter of not inviting divorce proceedings.

10

Maybe the term “too much” is not the right term to use, since it is the OP’s layout, and he decides what is too much. But he has asked for input, so here is mine. I am assuming we are talking about an HO layout.

Overall, and in principle, I think it is a simple enough and workable concept with the oval and the branchline in the given space. Here are some considerations.

You indicate that you are ok with a 4% grade on that branchline. In addition, some of that incline goes through sharp curves, so the effective grade in those curves is more like 6.5%. I would recommend that you test the trains that you want to run on those types of inclines. I did, and for my own, similarly sized layout, I have decided that anything over two percent is a no-go. I am running small steam, and maybe with diesels you have a bit more headroom, but I strongly doubt you will have reliable operation on a 4% incline with sharp curves.

My gut tells me that the track configuration for the yard at the bottom is not realistic, if workable track lengths should be maintained in that yard (e.g. for switching, buidling trains, run-around). I read the term “longer freights” in your description, but I don’t think it is realistic that this yard would manage anything longer than trains with amaximum of 4-5 40’ cars. I also doubt that engine house will fit as drawn in. You should verify workable track lengths either by setting that track configuration up with real pieces of track, or in track planning software, that shows turnouts to scale. Using track plan software will also help you figure out exact grades. Maybe despite conventional wisdom, I believe track planning software is more important when planning a small layout than for a large layout, because you want to make absolutely certain everything really fits as planned before you start building (ask me how I know).

Lastly, I would rethink the industries. The way they are l

11

Hi Matt,

I don’t have access holes, but I can reach all of the track from the outside except for the trolley track. The trolley will be on an automatic reverser circuit so it will just shuttle back and forth. It is a brass trolley with just two axles so I’m not worried too much about derailments if I get the track right. I may forego using proper trolley track and go with Code 83 flex track to allow more space for the flanges.

As far as working on the layout, I have built it on a rotisserie so I can flip the layout up on its side to get close to the center for laying track and scenery, and I can get at the bottom to install the wiring without having to go under the layout at all. The layout is at 36" so I can operate from a chair. Here is how it works:

Here is a shortened version of how I built the layout benchwork.

http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/287007.aspx

Dave

12

Here’s a quick ‘n’ dirty sketch of the space: Orange M&M is in the center of the layout. Path from doorway lower left to back of car upper right is very high foot traffic by people carrying heavy bags of groceries, like a firelane. “Do not park train layouts here.”

Priest River & Western "hinterlands"

13

10’x8’ is fairly generous space for a compact home layout.

Yard curves can be quite a bit tighter than mainline or branch line curves.

Were it my space to fill I’d be looking for ways to put the continuous running loop outside and the yard inside. Reason being the further out towards the edge you can squeeze your continuous running loop the broader the curves you can fit.

The existing yard configuration could be made to fit inside the main loop and along the 10’ side that is towards the centre of the garage. The main and branch lines could then be run all around the outside of the yard.

I know you can fit a continuous running loop with a reversing loop inside with a small yard into 9’x5’ because we’ve done it. We have some 22" radius inside the main loop but with your 10’ x 5’ “main table” you should be able to get out to 24" or even 26". Remember a tiny bulge out shelf projecting out from the table edge in just the right spot can get you enough room for broader curves without necessarily intruding into your restricted spaces.

You’re on the right track by using up paper first though. Keep an open mind. Don’t be afraid to begin again with a blank page.

14

Okay. So the entire layout is accessible all the way around for derailments, but you’re basically gonna want to run the layout from the east side around to the SW side.

Now that I understand the orientation better, the plan makes more sense.

The shape of the layout is really very good given the constraints, IMO.

I would say that if you can access the west side by going under the layout anyway, do you really need access hatches at all?

For correcting derailments, you need to be able to reach 30 inches. It seems to me that you have 30 inch access everywhere without going under except for the those two short spurs in the branch (which really add more clutter than operation, IMO), and that awkward green/orange turnout at 9 oclock.

Do you really need the south side of the orange oval at all? Just make the green line that goes under the town the main line. That would eliminate that hard to reach turnout going into the tunnel at 9 oclock. You have enough open space at 9 oclock to make the under-town curve radius broader, and eliminating the south side of the oval opens up a lot more space to shift some things around.

BTW, tell the captain of the house that if you build layout benchwork at standing height, say 48 inches, you’ve got plenty of room to build storage shelves underneath the layout. Then you can eliminate the steel shelves and won’

15

Matt,

I am not going to comment on your track plan because I know that track planning is a weak point of mine.

However, I am responding just to say that I am really impressed with the quality of a graph-paper layout plan you were able to put together. It looks well thought out and clearly presented.

My sketches are garbage!

-Kevin

16

I like the idea of replacing the fixed steel shelving with roll out storage under the layout. Having said that, the rollouts have to have space to roll them out to, so that could conflict with the ‘fire lane’ from the door to the car when you are working under the layout.

Have you thought about backing the car into the garage so you could alter the path of the fire lane? You would have to find a different place to hang the bikes.

Dave

17

Swisstrain,

Thank you. Someone has to do the hard job of telling the newb it won’t all fit. I appreciate that. Not that I want EVERYONE to do that. It’s great to be cheered on. I think there’s every reason to believe you are correct in every instance. Like I said, the yard’s a freebie, but I’m growing attached to it with feedback, and I have some ideas based on ideas from Douglas and Mike.
As for my industries, they will tend toward smaller (the broom manufacturer rather than a giant refinery) and my power and rolling stock will be short (1940s and 1950s). I was hoping to pull maybe 15 cars around the mainline – a short enough train so the engineer cannot see his own caboose ahead of him on the straights – then drop half of those in the siding and move the rest of the train off to be dismantled elsewhere. So hoping the siding could handle 7 or 8 freight cars, which could then be sorted out in the yard. If the main gets blocked for a few minutes, more fun for all (and everyone on my layout is paid by the hour). Locals from the yard would pull five, six of those cars up to Priest River on the branch line. I’m hearing you about the grade and curves, but all I can do is start the climb earlier maybe.

Lastspikmike and Douglas,
I like having that yard close to hand at the south end, but I’m giving a long look to Last’s idea about putting it inside the loop, especially in tandem with Douglas’ idea about increasing the radius of the under-town extension and making that the mainline loop, doing away altogether with the south curve of the current mainline loop. I tried to do this earlier within the strict confines of the layout edge, believe me, but it wasn’t working. It really would solve several issues, but only if I can run passenger trains on it, too. I can probably widen if I cheat that northwest inside co

18

I would can the steel shelves and park the car on the other side. That would open up a whole lotta space.

19

A Subaru Forrester is not a long Chevy Suburban. The wife should be able to park it in the slot closer to the door and still have room to walk in front of it to get to the house. Where the shelves are, should not effect the car much. Maybe that’s not an option.

Since you’re thinking about train length, blocks of cars, and operations; the rule is that your shortest runaround should accomodate the longest cut of cars you plan to run around. Time to take precise measurements and do some math.

On a small layout where you want to run around a 7 car cut, that runaround is probably going to take up more space than you want it to, limiting other spurs and scenery items. Its okay to consider shorter total train lengths, and to runaround a cut half that length. There are plenty of pics in the 1940’s and 50’s showing trains of 7 or 8 cars.

I would keep the yard outside of the curve. The yard tracks will be longer and it simply looks better, IMO. Take them all the way to edge and it gives the impression the yard keeps going. An extra 2 inches might make the difference in having a 3 car or a 4 car cut. I would gain radius under the town by eating into the space at 9 oclock.

If you can find a way to bend the branchline more to bring the turnouts and uncoupling function more to the south or the east, within reach from the front, that would make things a easier to operate and to fix derailments. Understanding that you dont want to take up a lot of the middle of the layout with the branch line.

You’re probably going to have to occupy the main to do a lot of the switching. That’s okay, its a small layout. But there are times when you can add a parallel track in certain spots and it won’t clutter things up.

20

Looking at the tunnel, and back of the enveloppe math about the height of your second level, I still think access will be a challenge for derailments, cleaning track and fixing things. Our club has a passage like that, and it’s a bit of a nightmare… for the return track, I meant the blue one, south-west. Have you thought of putting your station on the mainline?

Simon