I just uploaded a CAD image of the latest version of my proposed layout design and some photos of the state of the layout today. Actually the state like 15 minutes ago. Any comments would be appreciated. Keep in mind that this is my first model RR experience, and I've only been at this for a few months and I haven't finished thinking through the operational aspects of this. Enough disclaimers ??? Here's a brief overview of my plan: 1. Operationally there will be (Metrolink) passenger service modelled along with intermodal freight. Probably some other types of local freight, though I haven't thought this out yet. 2. It's a present day layout. No turnaround tracks or turntables. All diesels will be mu'd back to back, with runarounds at the end of every line. 3. Three levels, with grades between all levels. Lots of hidden areas for trains to wait and simulate off-layout travel. The upper level is a continuous loop, the lower levels are point-to-point, with access to the upper level. 4. The "left" side of the layout is going to be mountainous with a big gorge. The "right" side of the layout will be a city, with a large passenger terminal in the lower right corner and even some skyscrapers if I can figure out how to model them. Here's the link to my gallery: http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/page/1/ppuser/6563
Having a trackplan to look at sure is a big help. This is a much more ambitious plan than I had originally imagined. Double track main throughout. Of course the first thing to catch my eye is the duckunder. I realize this is a neccasary evil but it can turn into a real pain in the neck, literally (maybe it's an age thing). As long as you keep it as narrow as possible to reduce duck time and I've heard of some padding the underside. It's one of those personal preference things. Hidden track has several issues to be concidered. Access to track for derailures and track cleaning is a must. An option to reaching up and under the layout is removeable mountains or rock facia, fairly easy to do with styrofoam scenery. I understand your reasons for wanting the hidden track, but 24' stretches seems like a long time for a train to be out of sight. But then that's one of my dislikes of helixes also. There is a ton of opperating potential with this layout. I'm actually eager to see what others have to say.
Thanks for taking the time to look thru the layout. Yeah, I held off as long as I could with the duckunder. The problem is I had a bigger 'druther to have long curves, no less than 38" radius (ie, over 6ft diameter). Partially because I have a bunch of 80ft long Bombardier cars. But with a 10ft wide room, a complete loop of that size that still allows access is nearly impossible. Or at least it would take up a whole lotta space. It's a fairly high duckunder (about 50"), but I may decide later after I've bonked my head on it a few times to either make it removable or just get rid of it altogether. But a continuous loop sure seems nice. The hidden track thing will be at least partially addressed by my design of the stair step benchwork. There's a photo in my gallery that shows it, but basically the underlying benchwork looks kinda like a stair step, so that the area under the elevated levels, where the hidden track will run, is totally empty. We'll see how well that works when I have to get under there....
Indeed lots of potential! Plkease let me ask a few questions, intended to trigger some thoughts before you embark on cosntruction: 1. Intermodal Yard: Do you intend to park trains there with the engines attached? If not, it might be good to add a engine service facility somewhere for the "unused" engines. Also you currently have only one arrival track with a engine escape crossover. 2. A train leaves the Intermodal yard, but the only way to get back into the yard is with a backing movement. With your wide radius curves it looks possible, but it is a royal pain to always back long freights into the yard. Unfortunately I do not see an easy way to add a trunback loop or a yard entrance from the opposite direction to your existing plan. I read that you plan to "run around" your trains, but I do not see a place where an Intermodal train could do so. 3. I am not sure about the operational potential of the 6" level: It appears to have a double track (which would indicate a heavy mainline) starting at the intermodal yard and simply stops in the metropolitan area: What kind of traffic did you envision for that level? Cheers Dirk
My guess would be that line is for commuter traffic - but connecting it to the freight yard then doesn't make sense...
For the large yard- I would take the outermost two tracks and connect them into a loop to give you much more operating flexibility.
My thoughts exactly. My latest plan is considering adding a diesel maint. facility at the entrance to the yard, instead of the freight location I've shown. Is one not enough? The plan is that at the end of every line will be an escape crossover to run the diesel around to the other end. I haven't shown all the runaround crossovers in the drawing. I do have one continuous loop in the layout, and that is the tracks along the wall and over the duckunder. Since I can only fit one continuous loop in this layout (at the 12" level), the other two levels are point to point. At the end of line in the Metro area, I'm planning on making those tracks hidden to simulate off-layout travel (ie, the intermodal train will be travelling off layout, then return after a while). There will be runaround crossovers for the diesels. I'm thinking it's going to be a pain after a while, running the diesels around to the other end, but I can't think of any way around it.
Turns out it's almost identical to an actual yard in San Berndardino, CA, where the San Berdo Yard has four tracks for Metrolink. Here's a link to a recent photo I took: http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/500/San_Berdo_Yard.jpg I learned about that after I had done the design. Luckily...
I've been very seriously thinking about that for a long time. Problem is that gives me a second duckunder at only 40", right in the middle of the main aisleway. Maybe I can make it hinged or something.
I would prefer two tracks with an escape crossover. It gives you more flexibility: Just imagine one train has just arrived on your arrival track, engines still attached and just about to uncuple and move to the sevice facility. No other tran could enter the yard right now as it would not find a track with an escape at the end. Just food for your thoughts... Cheers Dirk
Hey, wait a minute. I never thought about that. I've actually finished putting together most of the main yard and the lines leading into it, and when running trains I've found that the single arrival track with runarounds is a bottleneck. Great idea. Thanks.
Glad to help! I thought quite a bit about the design for a stub-ended yard, though in the end I needed to use a simple two track double-ended yard with just the sorting tracks being stub-ended. Have fun with your layout construction. the photos look teriffic! Cheers Dirk
