Well, Guys, here’s a progress update on the development of my layout plan of the RRN. I developed it using Railmodeller software. This my first layout, so feel free to comment on things I did that make no sense. I extended the layout length from 11" to 15’ so I could add some staging space on the main level instead of below. There’s a big discussion on this layout under Red Rock Northern 07 on this forum. I 'm starting to read a lot about ops, and I wanted the layout to be as flexible as possible. So please comment as you wish. I just have a few buildings on the layout for place holders, and am deciding which industries I want to model. My time period is the mid 80’s til now. I’m, starting to research CSX history and train routes around the Baltimore/Ellicott City, MD area. I’ve already bought a Kato HO CSX MD80AC that I found for a good price. Thanks for your responses. Rich
Well, for starters, what I assume are the staging tracks are very short. I suggest trying a pinwheel ladder to produce longer tracks. They also might be a little too far from the operating pit for easy access. And consider a view block to hide the staging.
Perhaps its the Railmodeller software, but a lot of that trackwork - especially the curves - could be “smoother” in alignment.
OK will looks at staging track lengths. But what’s a pinwheel ladder? Staging was the problem with the original 11’ long plan, because it was on a sub level. Yeah I do intend to use a partition to hide it. For the trackwork I used flextrack and had to create the curve radii as required. It seemed easier to use than the sectional track. Thanks for you help. Rich
my main concern is an impossible grade at the left side of your plan. Some radii seem to be to tight as well.
Keep in mind vertical easements might need a total of about 3 ft of extra length, especially when the grade is in between turnouts.
Types of ladders:
BTW a drawing of the room with doors and other obstacles indicated might help in finding the best way to incorporate staging into your plan.
I am not sure if a plan designed for small old time engines and 40 to 50 ft cars is the best start for a modern railroad with big engines and long freightcars
If you are going 1980+, why have a turntable and roundhouse? A lot of space for something most railroads had ripped out by the 1980s. If you want engine servicing, normal diesel servicing can be much more compact.
Your “yard” has no lead. You will tie up a single track main switching the yard - nothing else can move at the same time.
Because of the grade issues it causes, you will probably have to ditch the connection between the 2 loops, and make it a pure twice-around. Or move the connection to a different location, where there is more distance to where the loops cross each other.
With modern era equipment, you are going to want to keep your minimum radius up at 26" or better, with minimum #5 turnouts.
Given all the changes you are looking to make, I’m not sure the Red Rock is a great starting point. The starting premises are just too different. An expanded Heart of Georgia might be a better bet, as it was designed with modern era equipment in mind.
Wow, thanks for all the helpful suggestions. So I’ve got a lot to think about. So lemme get started. I chose the RRN plan from the 2013 track planning supplement when I bought this year’s MRR track planning magazine. But the original 9’x11’ plan is also in the MRR track plan database. I was attracted to it because the description said it had flexibility for different eras, and I liked that it had 3 town areas, some streets, industries and bridges; all things that as a newbie, I thought I would like. But the problem with the plan is its elevation requirements for staging and other areas, and it discussed on this forum un the RRN 07 thread. So I thought if I took the basic plan and tried to open it up, maybe it would be a good start. Now I’m not so sure. I made the dimensions 9’x15’ and I closed in the inside walk around width by 1.5’ for more track space. The layout is to fit into the corner of our basement, but the top will be out from the wall 15" both for reach access and because there’s a window there. I can also move the left side away from the wall 15" for access if needed. The other two sides (right and bottom) are completely open for access. So I think reach is good all around.
I used all Atlas flex track and #6 altas turnouts. I thought that with the extension of the plan that elevations would not be a problem since everything would be flat except for the arears with the five bridges. Is that correct? Does your reference to grade mean elevation? I will have to study grade and yard layout more. I had purchased the Track Planning For Realistic Ops Armstrong book two weeks ago, but need to study it more. It has all of the things you mention.
Where can I find the Middle Georgia plan? Also, I liked the roundhouse and turn table cause I thought it would be neat to have. Little did I know! LOL I’
Grade in model railroading context means the up or down slope of the track needed to change elevations. Grade is typically measured in percentage, where grade = rise divided by run times 100. Much more than a 2% grade will significantly impact the length of trains you can successfully run. For a 4" difference in elevation for one track to cross over another in HO, a run of 200" (over 16ft) is needed for a 2% grade. This can be split between the lower track sloping down and the upper track going up, for a run on each track of 8ft.
To use a yard to sort cars, the engine pulls a cut of cars out of a yard track, and puts some of them on one track, and some on another. On your track plan, the only place for the engine to back up with the cut of cars is on to the mainline. Which means any other train on the main will have to stop and wait while the yard switcher is sorting cars. When you want to run trains on the main at the same time as the yard switcher is working, a separate drill or lead track is provided for the yard switcher to back up onto with the cut of cars.
Both grades and yards are covered in Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation.
It’s a given we never have space enough for all the things we would like to have on our layouts. So we each prioritize what is most important to have on our layouts (at least the wise do). I
Thanks, Fred. I didn’t realize that a 2% rise in elevation could require a 16’ climb. Am looking into Armstrong’s chapter on Developing the mainline. But if you try to read that book all at once, you’ll turn into a vegetable. It’s so much info. Your response explained the concepts very well. So far, I’m on my own with this endeavor, and the nearest worthwhile hobby shop is 30 miles away. So most of my info is coming from you guys and the internet. Rich
If you have more room than you are showing, there may be many better alternatives in your space in terms of access, scenic elements, and operating potential.
The best way to help others help you might be to post a sketch of the entire space. Then folks could suggest alternative benchwork shapes or arrangements that might work better.
Although study of Track Planning for Realistic Operation may seem daunting, the alternative of living with a layout for years that does not meet your needs or make best use of the space might be worse.
The two biggest concerns are the way too short staging tracks and the connector track that links the outer loop to the yard are on the left. That track will have an impossible grade.
If you’re modeling the 80’s, lose the turntable and the track going from it to the north. The idea of accessing the turntable from the other town is sort of a contrived space saving feature that is clever for the RRN, but not really useful for your plan, IMO.
If you remove the connector track, and its turnout near the yard, and the turntable, you can flip the yard to run along the operating pit, instead of squeezed in between the other tracks. This will give you longer, more useful yard tracks.
On the right side of the plan, if you shove all of the tracks closer to the pit, you may have room for three long staging tracks along the outside of the plan. A six inch skinnier pit and a backdrop separating the staging tracks from the layout might allow for some decent track spacing and scenery. You really only need to access staging before you enter the pit, so having the right side bench work be extra thick should not introduce a reach problem for normal operations.
Generally speaking, I would prefer to use the extra length of benchwork to lengthen both loops and the pit, rather than putting stubby staging tracks on.
Play around with those thoughts and see if they work for you.
Good points, Cuyama. That’s why I want to nail down a useable design as best I can. But I do not have any more space unless I want a divorce! LOL The wife has drawn a line in the sand. LOL It is what it is. Rich
OK, today I reread all of your responses, marked up my layout with the suggested changes, i.e. flip the yard, move the staging, lose the turntable, etc. I did like the turntable and roundhouse, but only from a newbie standby stand point. I’ve accepted the fact that it’s probably is not realistic in my case. So I will start to update my layout to see what I can come up with. Problem is: I’m not sure what to do with all the extra space to be realistic. That will take some time. Meanwhile I received 3 additional MRR supplement mags today on freight yards, realistic layouts and how to operate your layout. Am also planning to research data from the B&O Historical Society for operations and track plans in my area. I’ve followed the CSX tracks on Google Maps, but that as far as I gotten so far.
Byron, maybe I should have been more clear about my space. Didn’t mean to be short. My basement is L-shaped, and the space the wife and I decided for the layout would be roughly 9X15. I might be able to go to 17’ length, but we also want to be able to do other activities in the basement. I guess the long part of the L may be approximately 40’. So 9X15 is what we set aside for the layout.
As far as what to do with the extra free space in the layout, I don’t have a clue, and am looking for realistic ideas for ops. Joined the HOG group and wanted to print out the HOG plan so I could make some comparisons, but my Yahoo membership has not been approved yet, so I couldn’t get the printout.
So it may take a couple of weeks to get everything updated and reposted. Will be in touch. Thanks for all responses, Rich
with all due respect, I asked you to make a drawing of the whole space. Since your layout is part of a much larger room at least one of the sides of your layout to be has to be in the open. So at least one of your benches has access from both sides. Taking advantage of this situation could be a way to go. Thinking about an alternative without knowing the possibilities definitely is not to my taste.
You have so much more space then on the original RRN, it must be rather easy to come up with an alternative with easy staging.
Hi Paul, I realize that you and all the guys are just trying to help a new guy get started. As far as a drawing of the room, I just didn’t wanna take the time to sketch a drawing in Rail Modeller, upload it to Photobucket, then post it on the site. But I think it’s very easy to describe in detail now. Picture the letter “L”. Then flip it upside down with the horizontal portion to the right. That is the shape of our basement. The long part of the L is 32’, and the horizontal portion is 26’ wide. We are planning to put the layout in the upper left corner of the L. There is a window on the horizontal basement wall (top of the layout). So if I push the layout down from the window 15" for layout access at the top, that’s makes the total layout length 16 1/2’ (15’ + 15"). There’s dining furniture and seating in the area below the layout from the 16 1/2’ on.
The width of the layout was planned for 9’, but it could go to 10’ buy moving it away from the left wall to allow layout access if need be. The top right horizontal portion of the L is about a 13’X13’ box area, and there is a flat screen TV and seating. So we didn’t want to extend the layout width any more than the 10’ so as not to intrude into that space. You enter the basement area from stairs and a hallway at the lower right of the L. So that’s it.
So I think I will have good layout access all around the outside of the layout as well as from the inside pit. The space has a lot of possibilities. I also think that I may like having two mainlines if I can figure out how. I also gotta figure out where to put the lift out/duck under. Would really like a “walk-in” instead. And I’m definitely gonna look at the HOG more for its expansion possibilities. I’ve also looked all the track plans in the MRR database in the midsize walkin catego
Are there any updates on recent construction of a version of the Red Rock Northern? As many have noted, I am reviewing this trackplan with the idea of using it as a basis for my next model railroad. Specifically, I would be interested in hearing ideas from fellow modellers with regards to the staging and how they may have modified it. The staging has very limited access and very limited capacity. This is a small shortcoming of this plan as published. I appreciate your thoughts/ideas!
These are significant issues with the published plan, as discussed here before. Note that the original poster to this thread has since moved on to different ideas in a larger space.
