The min. radius is 16" except for industry spurs. The outside single line will be at a higher elevation. The line going east is to the yard.
Lots of continuous running Barry.... How about making the sidings top center into a 3 track, retaining the angled track as your switching lead and turn it into an inglenook, just for some switching fun?
I see one flaw with this plan. It's one I often see: not devoting your track length to achieve a long run. (This is more Bruce Chubb speaking than me.) I see two routes: a double-track once-around and the outer single-track once-around. They share a section of track. How do you operate this? I would do a twice-around instead but maybe that's just me. If it's meant to represent two railroads or something, say so! The Inglenook disisme suggested is good - if you like British-style switching games. Still, a multiple-track industry might be a nice idea, even if you don't operate it that way. This is N scale, right?
hmm, good points. Judging from my last layout, the industry spurs will change, I like the ideas mentioned. I'm searching my books for a twice around, my only worry is I was trying to keep the duck under simple. I should have mentioned that this plan is based on the Jordan Valley railroad in the book "101 Track Plans..." by Linn Westcott. Oh, and yes, it is N scale. I like running my long passenger trains, thus the 'want' for a continuous run. I would operate it as having a passenger train on the outside loop running continuous and would use the inside track for frieght, and thus switching. [ July 04, 2005, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Barry ]
I dont think the extra 2-3" of width is going to have a huge effect oon your duckunder / liftout, in the grand scheme of things. Since 99% of your track runs around the outside, why have a duckunder at all? Are there actual walls around the outside, and if so, who designed a room that dang small?
As I said, it isn't a twice-around. I can see the Jordan Valley influence. I guess there actually is a use for such an arrangement after all. Allowing one train to run unattended continuously... that's something Bruce Chubb would never allow. But then, he hardly contemplates running any layout with less than three people. There's value in reading books by railroaders with different assumptions. You are running this alone, I gather? And I just realized: Is that a freight yard, or a passenger yard?
Seems like you have lots of: Main line Industries Not much local storage / yard area. Looks good though.
yes the yard is to the right, not drawn. Small room? yes. That's why it ended up as the 'train room'. There are walls there. My previous layout had a 18" radius turn at one end and I found that too much of it was inaccessible thus my desire for around the room. I'm still searching for a good 'twice around'. I do operate by myself, and I like having the long runs for my two sons to watch. But I love having industry sidings for my switching fun.
This is a ROUGH diagram. It would be an inside industrial track with 16" radius curves and an outside twice around scenic track with 18" radius curves and 2% grade. Industrial tracks to be improved....
questions...do you NEED 5'6" x 5" inside the layout? If you lsot, say, a foor each way you could open up the radii of your curves to 18" at least, plus get some more room for switching off the inside track
Yes, I would say you need more width on the shelves. Personally, I wouldn't try to put three separate lines on a shelf much narrower than 30".
I can't do 3' x 3' because that would leave me literally one square foot in the center to stand. Maybe I will either make all the shelves 24", or maybe make the North shelf 36". Good points, thanks. My other concern with wide shelves is making the corners too deep. The reason I tore down the old layout was because of difficulty accessing some areas, don't want that problem again.
I agree Barry, keeping everything within reach is a key point to enjoyment. The real struggle come from trying to keep the surface area as wide as possible while making the duck under as narrow (and high) as possible. Although the duck under is not everyones favorite access, in the space available it seems to be a nessasary evil in this case. Mounting the layout as high as possible will reduce the discomfort of ducking. As far as the boys being able to see, either bar stools (that's what my daughter uses) or a bench for standing on can help there. This is it's own "give and take" decision, but I assure you the less YOU bang your head, the more the boys will enjoy the train room; the fewer bad words kids hear the better The concept is commendable, continuous running while switching on the local. Same elements a lot of us try to incorperate into our designs.
We had a big thread about duck unders a while back. what about drawbridges, have you considered that option?
hmm, no, I haven't considered a drawbridge. I think because there would be three tracks, and at different elevations, it would be a real challenge to do a drawbride
Have you considered the followig: Set the railroad height at 5' Adding a subfloro in the middle making the inside a 3=4 foot height Putting a ramp into the room, from the door under the layout. Its a little less of a duck under, thouh still a duck under. You have a tight space, you have my sympathy. But after mine, well, I think you cdan get a lot of creativity in that space
