I have 2 track plans that I'm considering in a 8' x 9' L shaped space in N Scale. Benchwork is built as that space is not negotiable. I've developed two double-main track plans, one without grades and one with. I've already placed track for the no-grades option, but no scenery applied so pretty early in process yet. I started thinking if the layout could be better with grades and an up and over. Both layouts below were developed using SCARM (love it). Looking for any advice on which might be preferred over the long haul and any changes that might enhance either. There are pros and cons with each, and I do like both. Thanks No-Grades Option 2% Grade Option Dave
thanks for posting Dave! both plans appear to be well thought out but have a couple issues the first plan has the possibility of easily adding a crossover to complete a reverse loop in both directions. it also has the interest element of curved track not parallel to edge the second plan loses the reverse loop completely and what it gained in visual interest due to grades is lost in the straight track now parallel to the edge I would go with plan 1 with tweaking done to make reverse loop accessible in both directions fwiw...just my own thoughts regards Gary
The no-grade option DOES have reverse loops in each direction. However, the counterclock to clockwise connection is impeded to an extent by the spur that crosses it. That spur could easily come off the reverse loop connection rather than crossing it. The clockwise to counterclockwise connection on the top-right lobe of the layout has a section paralleling the double-track main for a short distance that seems to have no purpose except a place to put a bridge. I think a railroad would not want to build an unnecessary bridge. I would attach the connection to the left of the double-track bridge. Might require moving the bridges (and the river) an inch or two to the right. I would also (if I were a real railroad) try not build an expensive bridge just to get two industry spurs, but connect them at the right end of the bridge. One of my main priorities in layout design is staging. The top side of the plan seems a prime spot for hidden staging, which I would think more important that reverse loops. And more important that seeing that train out in the open a little bit more, especially since that means seeing the train in a place that makes its roundy-round turnback obvious. I would even go so far as to loose one reverse loop to have good hidden staging. That would mean using that one reverse loop with a train or loco backing occasionally, but that happens a lot in the real world. Just my prejudiced opinion.
Yes I should have mentioned, it's more like a walk-around. The left, bottom and right side of the vertical peninsula would all be easily accessible. Only the top side is against a wall. I do like the idea of staging on that top side. I once started down that path, but got a comment from someone else that it would start to look like a spaghetti bowl. I'm thinking staging would be more important for me, and I could always use that additional track for a run around to the other side of the train if I had to. I'm reworking a version of the plan that would include the staging, but not sure I can still squeeze in a reverse look. I'll see... Thanks for the comments, Dave
Do you want a double-track main that allows two separate trains running independently, or a plan that looks like a double-track main but is really a twice around? When submitting a track plan, it's helpful to describe at least generally what kind of operation you are planning.
Two separate tracks. Heavy coal and grain unit train action. Additionally 1-2 boxcars or reefers to local industries. With a staging yard, much more of this becomes reality.
track plan You might also keep in mind that building scenery below and above track grade will give the appearance of the track rising and falling. Also, having the mine spur come off of a siding, rather than directly from the main, would facilitate switching the mine without fouling the main. Just my thoughts. Carl
ah, yes....ok: I was in error! the reverse loops are accessible and work in both directions. sorry for the error in my read of the trackplan. what caused the confusion for me was the amount of run on the mainline tracks to be able to access the reverse loop in both directions. if I have it right this time, which I hope is the case, there are three things that would improve on the 1st plan: [1]. exchange single crossovers on mainline in place of double crossovers as such were seldom used except in passenger station throats [2]. add another pair of single crossovers on the track along the left side or that side of the access to reverse loop [3]. increase the radius of the reverse loop curve at top/right where it connects with mainline track other than these issues it is a fine design! sorry, again, for missing the other access to reverse loop---I got lost in tracing my way around the mainline best regards Gary
All good stuff guys. After giving a lot of thought to what Kenneth mentioned regarding staging, I've tweaked the plan accordingly. The industry that was on the far right of layout was a destination for the coal mine, but I've since removed it. The staging yard will now be one of the destinations for those trains. I've given that entire area back to scenery. Perhaps some more tweaks are forthcoming, but I think the staging area fills a big void for me with this layout. Here's the latest... Thanks, Dave
I like the idea of eliminating one or both of the reversing loops and putting staging tracks (perhaps 2) along the top of the kidney/oval (no grade) layout. On the left side of the layout, the turnout from the outer loop into staging could be positioned about half way down and angle away from the double main tracks as much as possible without actually running parallel with the fascia as it approaches the corner. Separate the staging lead from the double main tracks enough to put a few trees or a hill or ravine between the staging lead and the mains, so it will seem like they are farther apart. If you put a turnout to the second staging track just before the curve, and trees/hills to act as a view block between the mains and the staging tracks, an operator standing at the top left corner could see (and reach) into the staging area, but an operator in the middle third of the layout working the mine or traveling along the main would not be able to see the trains in staging. On the right side of the layout, the turnout from the outer loop into staging could be positioned at the lower right corner of the upper arm of the L. Depending on aisle space on the right side of the upper arm, the turnout to the second staging track could be at the middle or top of the right hand side. Although it will be a little more cramped than on the other side, as possible, use spacing to separate the staging lead from the mains, and view blocks to hide the tracks when viewed from the bottom (inside the L) but not when viewed from the top of the right side aisle. Regardless of whether you will be using right-side running or have the outside loop as the main and inside loop as the passing or industrial siding, you will want to install a right-hand crossover from the outer main to the inner main and locate it between the turnout to the right side of staging and to the right of any turnouts to sidings serving industries on the inside of the L. This will allow trains entering or leaving the right side of staging to pass or meet trains working industries on either side of the mains. (Your plans currently show a double crossover on the inside of the L, and while that could serve as the left-hand crossover for the coal mine and access to left side of staging and as the right hand crossover from right staging to the inner loop, it's present location will not facilitate passes or meets for any of the industries on the inside of the L.) Additionally, it may be useful to locate a left-hand crossover somewhere to the left of any turnouts to sidings serving industries on the inside of the L, and before (below) the turnout that goes to the left side of staging. If there will not be a double-ended siding long enough to permit a pass and to receive long cuts of coal hoppers for the mine (i.e., if trains will be stopping on the inside loop to switch the coal mine), then you may want to place the crossover low enough on the left side of the layout so that a second train can pass any train stopped to work the mine. If you move your double crossover to the top of the layout, it could facilitate passes and meets for both the inside and outside of the layout.
Here are modified versions of the no-grade plan, as I'm leaning heavily toward that direction now. I've done my best to include a staging area, which makes for more interesting ops for me and gives me greater opportunity to get different car types on the layout. Still open towards suggestions... Dave
Some questions on your 7/8/14 09:06 AM (top) plan: 1. Why the one double Xover in the whole layout? 2. why not single Xovers near staging to allow trains from any siding to go to any main? 3. Why no runarounds near your switching areas? 4. Not using DCC to be able to use both mains?
I've added a few more this go-around. Going more for geometry and making sure everything fits and then going toward function (just the way I operate). Not sure I need any crossovers at the staging area in back, but time will tell. I think I've adjusted for running around. Layout is DCC, yes. Here's my latest... Thanks, Dave
Other than changing from one mainline to the other those two double Xovers seem useless, especially for switching. Besides they cost at least double single Xovers. Are you going to be running pax trains? If they're doing station stops, there's no way for any other train on same track to get around them. Same thing goes for freights stopped to do some switching.
Andy - Thanks. Since I'm using Unitrack, single crossovers are only available using (2) #4s for a similar price of a double crossover. I really don't want to use #4s. Even though the double crossovers are rare, they really help save a ton of space on a model railroad. I also think the 2 pairs of double crossovers help me get trains from mainline to a siding with fewer maneuvers. Weren't you the one who mentioned something about only having one double crossover on a previous layout version? Just curious as to what you'd do differently. Thanks.
First of all my layout is using flextrack & regular switches #s 4, 5, 6 & maybe a couple of wyes. From what you're saying about Unitrack, it's way too restrictive for my purposes. If you haven't bought any Unitrack yet look into going w/ what most people do using "regular" track. There has been alot of discussions comparing track types on this & other forums already. My layout is going to be the LAJ Ry so there are NO double Xovers. Those are used only in very congested track areas like passenger terminals & major yards. The real RRs avoid them like the plague because they are maintenance headaches & probably apply to model ones as well. These have also been discussed on the forums so do some forum searches.
Ok thanks for the input. I've been modeling railroads since I was 10, so this certainly isn't my first go around. I've used flex track in the past as well and have built 4-5 decent layouts. This is a new venture for me with Unitrack, and yes I've bought 75% of what I need. Unitrack is a bit restrictive, it would be hard to deny it. I will say it is readily available, easy to work with, and my trains run terrific though. With a family, job and volunteer activities this track type fits my lifestyle perfectly. Your comments were very good as it got me to think about ways to try to improve this design. Whether or not it really did improve, I don't know. Sure seems like it will be fun to run and operate on.
Had my first HO layout in '56 at 13. So have learned a little about MRing. Since you're going to use DCC do you really need two main tracks? Seems like you could have plenty of ops w/ a single main & 3-4 sidings. And are you totally committed to going roundy-round on tables? Or could you go around 4 walls & cork screw up/down point to point on 1'-2' wide shelves?
I'm the kind of guy that wants an "empire" layout, lots of running. Well with the space you have, and I'd be putting up a double decker, in fact you could go three decks but I'll put that aside. I'm going to link you to Tim Horton's layout and go to "Construction" then helix to see the helix for the layout that runs in his bedroom. The rectangle in the middle of the room is his bed. You have enough space for a helix, check out Tim's measurements for his layout: http://www.bcrdawsonsub.ca/
