Just wanted to post this to see if I made any glaring errors on this layout. I am drawing it up for a customer that comes to the shop I work at. It will be a 4x8 (3'7" x 7'7" because of the odd table he has already built) that will be an island so all sides are accesable. I have worked in all he wanted except a barge loading/unloading area. It could be worked in on the siding just below the yard if I change the "flow" of the river. The bottom picture is the same thing with the logging mountain lifted off so you can see the hidden track. The hidden trackage for the coal mine would be for empty/loaded exchange or just plain car storage. The logging area is 3.5" above grade so there is plenty of room for hands in the tunnel/staging. That results in a 3 percent grade to the top of the mountain. All curves are 12" radius or larger except for the logging spur which goes down to 9 3/4. Track will be code 80 flex. Turnouts will be #4 in the yards, #6 for most any located on the main. It will be DCC and he would like to do DCC turnout control also. I have left out a reverse loop on purpose for simplicity and like all railroads, he want's to be able to expand it.
The only suggestion I could make is perhaps tying in the yard lead (at the upper left) a little further right, and perhaps lengthening the yard trackage, thus giving him a place to switch out/store cars. You may have to move the river over to the right a little bit, or add a single-track bridge on the yard lead. On the logging branch, what's the possibility of adding a turnout or two for engine runaround? Again, just suggestions......I like the overall concept. Methinks the fellow you're doing this for will be pleased.
The runaround in the logging yard is a good idea. The logging area is pretty much just a place holder till he decides on structures anyhow so that could be added in when we decide just what buildings will be there. I played with the engine yard and actually shrunk it a bit to make more room for scenery in the town. He doesn't have a huge amount of cars right now so I was planning on using the hidden area under the mountain for car storage. the engine yard is just going to be a loco storage/service facility.
Well... Thats a whole heckuv'alot of real estate for a N scale layout. My only complaints are as follows: 1. engine yard. It seems a shame not to have a yard for cars too. 2. I might be tempted to flip the direction of your cross overs. One of them also seems to be right in front of your Passenger station area. 3. Such a large space. I would be tempted to do a coal mine/power plant run through for empties in loads out simplicity. Overall it looks interesting.
I agree with Geeky about the crossover in front of the passenger station. How about moving it to the spot where the future extension leaves the double track main to cross Main Street? This shift will also support right-side running from the passenger station as well as from the engine yard/car storage yard. If you flip the crossovers, you will lose your right-side running orientation. Is that acceptable to the customer? If you have the yard lead cross the river on a second bridge and tie in near the passenger station, you will be able to lengthen the yard to hold as many cars as the industries hold and still have a track or two for engines. Is freight car capacity something the customer wants, or is he only interested in an engine yard, at this time?
Here is an update taking into consideration the suggestions. Car storage is not a big deal. This layout already has 3 times the storage than the plan he gave me to work from. I switched the crossovers around, I'm not sure I like them. I lost some of the city area. The flow is not the same and I don't like tracks parallel to the edge of the layout, they look too mechanical and not natural. If I can get the layout pushed out to a full 4x8, I can recover a lot of the area this takes up and I think I will be more comfortable and get some of the flowing turns back. It really is his decision so I will let him decide. Part of the design is to be able to split the layout into two 2x8 section to make it easier to work on and safer to transport. I will probably be building the basic track work and scenery at home, he is then going to complete the ground cover and buildings.
Ummm...by flipping the crossovers in this way, you have set it up so the only way to get from the engine yard or passenger station to the inner loop is by switchback movements, or by going all the way around the layout on the left (outside) track, then 1/3 or 1 and 1/3 the way around the inside track to get back out. Keep the new location for the passenger station crossover, but flip it back the way it was...so it is a right hand crossover. And flip the other crossover back, too, to a left hand crossover. That way trains traveling with right side running can enter or leave the station without having to back their entire train to get to the inner loop. Would it be possible to recover some of the city real estate if the passenger station crossover was positioned a little bit more counter clockwise around the loops so that it was angled with the lower end pointing to the lower right corner instead of its current orientation of the top pointing to the upper right hand corner? Or how about something a little less prototypic but often used in smaller layouts as a space saver and something that is workable with right side running? Instead of forming the passenger station crossover with 2 right hand turnouts, how about putting a right hand turnout in the outside loop, but a left hand turnout in the inner loop? This would preserve the prototypic use of the curved part of the outside turnout moving the trains from the passenger station track through the crossover to the inner loop for right side running. Although the inner loop main would pass through the curved part of the inner loop crossover turnout, all trains would be right side running, so they would only enter the turnout from the top of the frog end of the curved portion of the turnout instead of from the end with the switch points. By returning the crossovers to their original orientation, you also make it easier for the siding on the inside loop across from the engine yard to be worked by trains traveling either direction. As above, I'm assuming right side running is prefered and that your customer wants track configurations set to minimize the number of switchbacks and runarounds necessary to spot a car on a siding, just like the prototypes. You've added a new siding in the engine yard that is accessed off a switchback move. If you are comfortable widening the bridge that carries the yard lead a little bit at its left end, then you could put a new turnout immediately to the right of the first yard turnout and push cars directly to the siding instead of making a run-around move and a switchback move. (The arguement may be offered that it makes for "interesting" movements, but there is a fairly high chance that those forced movements may become "irritating" movements relatively quickly. Of course, this, like including other puzzle movements in a track plan, will be decided by the customer's preferences.) If the river is bent to the upper left corner, then the repositioned engine yard siding could serve a barge facility on one side and an engine fuel (coal? diesel fuel?) storage on the other.
Well shoot, there is one of those glaring errors I was talking about. I guess I was a little tired last night when I edited the layout. Here is a new version with repaired crossover flow. I'm not concerned about the engine yard size and access, that will be exclusively for loco storage and service. He doesn't have enough equipment right now to worry about staging for rolling stock. That is what the lead off through the town is planning ahead for, additions and staging. This will mainly be a railfan layout with little opperations thrown in for the logging and coal sidings. The other industries will come later. As things get built, the siding below the engine yard will become the barge depot I think. I will have to adjust on the fly to see what will work best there.
Tony: Check which plan you linked in your most recent post...I think you wanted to show us a different revision. (Tired, huh? Been there, done that, have the bags under my eyes to prove it.:teeth: ) Regarding future expansion: If the track that leads through town ties into the outside loop between the station and the right hand crossover from the outside loop to the inside loop, then future trains entering this portion of the layout will be able to move immediately to the right side running track (if that is what the customer wants). If the connection is after the crossover, then trains will have to go all the way around on the outside loop before crossing to the inside loop.
Ok, I understand what you are getting at now. I went a little hog wild on this version. I am risking going to the point of too much track for the scenery but this does make it a bit more opperational. I flipped the crossovers again, moved the siding below the yard to make it useable as a barge port, changed the logging spur around to make it so that switching doesn't interfere with the the main line. Now he can run a passenger train and/or coal drag around the mainline while switching the logging section independently. You will have to pass the station on the outside loop to get to the inside loop to drop cars at the barge dock but something has to be hard.
Wow - great design! I'm a long time collector but need help with my first layout. Couple of quick questions: 1. Do you have a BOM or list of track/switches for this layout? Or, is there a particular brand of track used? 2. Could you note where insulators are required - or, if this is DCC, are any required at all? (Sorry, I'm new to this...) I just helped a friend build his first N scale layout (mine too) and I wish I had seen this first. Very impressive. His is DC with Kato track/switches/Pwr Sup - but it is pretty cool. Thanks in advance for posting this topic and all the pics. Very cool.
I don't have a track list for the layout yet. I haven't quite gotten that far along. It is being designed on Atlas RTS so when I am done, I can post a track list. Most of the turnouts on the main are #6's including the crossovers where #4's are used in the yards and industry sidings. The track is Atlas Code 80. There will be no sectional track used on the layout except for the turnouts when complete. It will be all flex track. I am a firm believer that fewer joints leads to fewer problems. The layout is being designed for DCC and since there are no reverse loops, nothing needs to be isolated. The green siding out of the loco yard will be the program track and it will be isolated from the main and switchable from program to mainline service. The logging line will probably be isolated also. This way, should you want to run an Atlas Shay or LL SW8/9 as your logging loco, it could be isolated and run as a DC only line (the shay, SW 8 and many other small loco's that would be used in logging are not often DCC friendly.) The passing siding/lead for the logging line could be wired so that it is switchable from DC to DCC to allow use by both types of loco's.
Very nice!! I like the way you adjusted the barge siding and added the run-around for the logging track, too. These adjustments will provide great industries that can be worked from either direction. Using the run-around for the barge terminal will NOT be a problem. If you plan on using both DCC and DC for the logging tracks, will you be installing insulators at either end of the run-around or just where the single track goes up to the logging camp?
:thumbs_up: The fine tuning of the design has made this a truly fabulous layout. I like how there are tracks leading off the edge that can be used for future expansions or staging. It's kinda rare that we see a 4x8 for N scale, very refreshing.
I know I am late with suggestions but I have been following this thread since it was first posted. Over all my initial reaction to the the layout was: WOW what a fantastic design! But, when I got to looking at the original plan, I noticed a lot more potential for the bottom area. The revision that I had came up with did not compare to the attached file that was suggested by some one else, but I still think some thing may be missing at the bottom area. Has any one thought of adding a couple more cross overs to the bottom area? Similiar to the yellow lines in this picture? This would give the ability to come from the branch line to either of the main lines. Also it would allow for a passing siding for trains that are entering and exiting the mine area. Also I know car storage is not necessarily a big need right now, but I would make either more tracks at the logging spur and/or a crossover for a run around to place the engine at the other end of the train when it leaves the logging area. Perhaps adding a run around in the mine area might be beneficial as well. Just my two cents. Mr X
Did you use XtrkCad for the pics? I have been playing around with it and have yet to master the elevations. Can't seem to get it correct in RTS either
Updates: I talked to the gentleman I am working on this for today and the layout got a little breathing room. We are modifying his table so that we can use the full 4x8. This will allow me to let the curves flow a little better. It is amazing what and extra 5" each direction can give you. I'm not going to revise the layout drawing for this extra space because now he has commissioned me to build it. I will adjust on the fly once I start laying out the track. MrX - I thought about crossovers down there but really decided against them because of space. I don't want to use #4's on the main and #6's take up too much space which would cause the turns to have to be sharper. I think smooth radius and easements take priority over the crossovers. Besides, more crossovers means more potential for track problems down the road and more cost because he plans on operating all turnouts via DCC. As far as the logging lead. I may still add a runaround but at this point, I don't see the need for it. The loco will always be on the downhill side of the cars. I have seen very few pictures of a logging operation where the loco is pulling cars up a hill, almost always they push up the hill and pull down. The loco is positioned in front of the cars to prevent a runaway in the case of a broken coupler. BugNerd: Everything is done with RTS. I have gotten pretty comfortable with it. Even though it has many limitations compared to Xtracad I can put layouts together faster with it. This is my layout plan that I am working on using RTS.
I agree that RTS is faster. I was trying XTrkCad because it had Unitrack in it and I could match the radii, etc. Do you do the elevation on the layout first and then add the track? My track seems to run right through the moiuntains If there is a tutorial that you know of, that'd be great. Your layout looks amazing! Wish I had the room for it.
