Been working on this for a while. I want to do a layout that can move with me, yet still have contain as much operating interest as possible. It's 10x4.5 ft. I'm mainly looking for critiques, the notes on the drawing should cover most details. I want a lot of operation, but also to avoid an overly spaghetti appearance, so hidden staging is utilized as well as a part of the loop being hidden.
At first glance, I'd say you've got yourself a serious pasta dish there, in spite of the fact you were trying to avoid it. Any way of using various line weights/colors to help differentiate the many tracks stacked on top of another? It's very hard to follow this plan. From what I can decipher, it looks as though you could use a yard lead for the yard with turntable, to avoid fouling the main during switching.
Yeah, that's kinda what I was afraid of. I want to avoid boring and overly simple, but a huge mess of track isn't ideal either. It's a fine line I suppose. It'll be out in the garage, so size isn't an issue. I want something big enough to be a multi-year project, but small enough to move in one piece. The CAD drawing program I am using doesn't have multiple colors, I tried to represent hidden track with dashed 'construction' lines, but it is a bit hard to follow. I should layer it instead. I really need to learn how to use adobe illustrator. The yard with the turntable is a dead-end yard, per prototype. The track running from that yard to the mine yard is a "loads in/empties out" sleight of hand borrowed from John Armstrong. The fouling of the mainline when you pull past the dumper lead is a problem, on the prototype the dumper lead is much longer so the dumper job doesn't foul the main once it has backed in. Max grade is .03, I'm thinking with 8-10 car trains with two locomotives, 3% shouldn't be too steep.
Mike, Unless the CAD program you are using contains the track metrics (especially turnouts) you migh want to try some of the various track planning software. I use AnyRail as it was the easiest to learn but there are plenty of other products available. 3 3% grade is steeper thean you think but probably manageable.
The angles and lengths of all the turnouts are defined in the drawing, I hand-lay so I can ensure a #6 is actually a #6. I'm sure the track planning software is nicer, simply because it takes the grunt work out of drawing. Using this program all tangents, angles, spacing, radius, etc. have to be defined manually, which can be a pain, but also enables a bit more flexibility. I can grab a tangent or curve and drag it around to see how it affects other elements.
You can do that in AnyRail. It also has layers, and you can identify hidden track, as well as color-code it. Plus it has just about every track library known to man, including Fast Tracks. The only thing you can't do is define your own track elements.
hi Mike, For your plan you'll need access from at least 3 sides, so the actual space requirement will be about 13x7. A lot of different less crowded footprints seem possible to me. A few comments on the plan as drawn: The loads-in empties-out scene could be double tracked. A common dedicated yardlead for Dark River Yard and the Escanaba Dump would be an asset, as David mentioned already. More important however i am pretty sure your grades are not possible. You are modelling quite a bit of mainline; from Greenbay(in staging) through Marinette(virtual), Darkriver, Partridge JCT and Gladstone (SOO interchange) to the underground lap-connection with Greenbay again. Is the blue track just before Mead Paper the SOO-line interchange? Smile Paul
I've just reproduced the plan in AnyRail, and if I've got it right, then the grades are indeed impossible. Even if you sloped some of the yards--which I don't think you want to do--it simply will not work. I think you'll need to completely re-work this plan. Take this opportunity to get the grades workable, and perhaps put the layout on a diet as well.
Born-n-raised in Escanaba... the idea of CNW modeling (especially ore trains) always intrigued me.. My humble suggestion, would be to have only one, "major" location on layout (you have three: the mine, the ore dock, and the Soo-yard in Gladstone).. and concentrate on one main-line (i.e.. Escanaba-to-Mine (Mine off layout/staging) with an ELS interchange for the Mill .. or .. Mine-to-Escanaba (Escanaba off layout/staging) with an LSI interchange).
Yeah, I'm thinking it's best to scrap the whole SOO connection and just put that interchange in staging. Don't need the paper mill either, though I would like to keep both the mine and dock. So dock, mine, staging. Priorities in that order.
A 2.0% grade = 1" per 50" .. 2.5% grade = 1" per 40" The NMRA standards call for N scale seperation of: 1.29" (pre-1920), 1.6" (1920-1969), 1.72" (modern) http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/s-7_2011_02.pdf This is just clearance from the top of the lower rails, for cars on those rails... for rail-top to rail-top you need to add for for the rails, ties, roadbed, and things like bridge thickness, or sub-roadbed, etc. For HO, I use 4" while planning.. allows for grade-transistions, and a margin of error.. So, for N, 2 inches should work for planning purposes.. which means 80"(minimum) of run..(2.5% .. above that becomes visually "ugly")
I agree with DKS that this is a spaghetti bowl. I don't see it as being very "portable" in one piece either. What would assist us would be if you'd inform us just what the layout location parameters are, such as, do you have the full garage?...or only part of it. Does the layout have to be able to be moved around in the garage, or can you build parts of it up next to the walls? Problem here is you're attempting to cram too much into too little space. If you spread it out by unfolding it, getting rid of the grades and adding sufficient space between your industries and yard, that would add greatly to the overall appeal of what you're attempting to accomplish. If you have room, I'd spread it out using several much smaller "sections" such as 30" X 72" sections...or maybe skinnier where there is no return loop required. I'd also opt for an at least 18" minimum mainline radius, or stick with a 20" or 24" radius as much as possible and go down to an 18" when space demands it. I can see you spreading the components of this layout out into several 6' long sections that bolt together, or are held together with big C-clamps and have Anderson Power Poles at each juncture to make separating the electricals easy...almost like designing modules, but with no standardized track interfaces. Making each section self-supporting with either folding or bolt-on legs would be good too, with 3" levelers (carriage bolts or glides) on the bottoms of your legs to compensate for the usually uneven or sloping garage floor. The "big board" design with a scenery divider running down the middle of it is not a very efficient design, and a C-shaped layout with the interior isleways serving two parts of your layout is very efficient, especially if you remember to design it so that only one side of the central isle will have an industry or yard while the other side will be running through scenery. Scenery/scenery is allowed...industry/industry isn't. The reason I suggest 6' long sections is that's a good size to be portable, but long enough to utilize N-scale's terrific scenery-to-track-ratio. 6' sections also allow folding legs if you choose to do that, and you choose a tall railhead to floor height of 48" or more (I prefer 52" which suits my old eyes and 6' height). The taller your sections are, the longer the legs, so 6' gives you the possibility of having enough room for your folding legs to fit into. There are several things I like about your design philosophy, (1) I like it that you're including Layout Design Elements (LDE's), (2) I also like it a lot that you roll your own turnouts, which drastically opens up layout design possibilities as far as trackwork is concerned and (3) I like the idea of portability that is part of what you want. If you have the room to spread these LDE's out and make room for trains a lot longer than would be able to run on your initial design and give you some room between industries, it would greatly improve your layout. So, tell us what the maximum space is you have in your garage, then we can go from there... Cheers! Bob Gilmore
I didn't use any; the problems were so acute that I didn't even need to run any calculations, although if there was a chance it could work, I'd have used 2".
Since fingers and wood do not shrink with scale it might be better to have a bit more clearance. Anyway the short distance for an overpass like on a bridge is asking for a different standard then when a lot of underground trackwork (like long stretches or staging area's) is involved. Besides the need of allowing space for vertical easements. Both at the top and bottom of the grade you will need extra length. For each easement about half the length of a car (your longest) for every percent of change of grade. When you have 6 ft of length for the incline, due to the easements you have to deal with a run of only about 4 to 5 feet, depending on the kind of equipment. A 2,5 inch rise with a 54 (4,5 ft) inch run means a grade of over 4,5%. Add the extra drag for the curves (17/R) and you'll understand why your engines are having a hard time. hi Mike, The run between Blackriver Yard and the tail at the right of Escanaba Yard is two feet at most. Allowing for one easement you end up with about a 20" run for a 2" rise. A grade of 10 percent, however with a grade that steep your easement should be 5 carlengths long, more then one foot probably, making your grade even steeper. Paul
Was any portion of a yard or passing siding involved in your calculation of the grades? I made sure they were all flat, and that pushed the grades way up.
