Ok, I need some help I am new to model railroad and compeltely ignorant about the whole thing but have been doing alot of reading try to educate myself. I have settled on a N scale layout and it will be DCC controled. I have 4X8 space to work with but may in the future be able to expand but that does not need to be the primary consideration. If I do get alot more room I will more than likley just build a new layout. I would like to do a little switching & operations but also want continous running as well. There should not be more than 2 trains going at any one time. I have a young son that just likes watching trains run but that will change in the future. Having plenty of space for scenery is important to me and would like to be fairly detailed in that part of the layout. I am not an experienced railroad modeler but I do have alot of modeling experience in other areas and the building and detail part is a big part of the ejoyment for me. What I have done was took an existing Atlas layout and expanded it quite a bit and added more of a staging area. I used their freeware which I was not able to figure out elevations on but no grades should be over 2%. I also wonder what to do about track. It sounds as if the Atlas code 80 is the easy way and pretty much any rolling stock and engines should work fine. Or should I go the extra expense and use Code 55 Peco. Is there realy that big of a difference with the look between the two. What I want to know is does the layout look viable for what I want to do. Does anyone see any potential problems with the layout etc. I am open to suggestions and advice on this. The fewer mistakes I make the happier I will be. Thanks Al
Like I said I am pretty new to all of this. My terminology may be off a bit so please excuse me. Ok the yard area. What could be done to improve this area and make it more usable. Or the layout in general. I am open to all suggestions. What seems reasonable to me as a newby may look absolutley ridiculous to an experienced pearson. That is the reason I am asking for advice. Any help or advice in greatly appreciated. It is all a learning experience for me. Thanks, Al
Al_T First off, let me say welcome to train board! Any way there a lot of great people here that will be able to help you. I know there have been quite a few that have helped me. Well it looks as if you are doing a modification of track plan N-17 from Atlas. I kind of like the plan in some ways, but for me the switching does leave a little bit to be desired even though it is not a big concern right now. The ability to run two trains at once with them racing around the tracks may be also slightly questionable. This plan might be a good first layout for you. Then again, if you have never built a lay out before it might be a little bit challenging due to the cookie cutter design. Depending on how old your son is - and maybe I am very wrong here - but I would recommend code 80 due to the following reasons. Code 80 in my opinion would be more "forgiving" than what Code 55 would be. There have been beautiful layouts built with both kinds of track so do not let me stop you from doing either. Code 80 of course is a little bit bigger as far as the surface of the rail that is exposed and therefore does not require you to get smaller flanges on the wheel sets. If your son is younger, it may lend itself to him getting the cars and locos on and off the tracks. You may have an easier time of installing Code 80 and per chance have fewer derailments. Code 55 is going to be slightly less forgiving in my opinion. I would potentially modify this track plan a little bit to truly allow two train operation and have them up and running. Perhaps change the yard area up a little bit more than what you have it now. I am sure there will be others that will provide there two cents on how you can modify it to best suite your needs as you described them. Although it is not a big concern now... I would try to place at least some straight track near the corners or a couple of other spurs so that way you could expand it in the future if you find it necessary. On the plan how you have it now that only place for expansion would be off the yard at the bottom. I believe there is a user named 'sagelake' that has/is currently building this plan so maybe you can look at some pictures for truly an accurate depiction of what it would look like. Mr X
The cookie cutter design does not scare me. I am an experianced wood worker which I think will help with the bench work. What does bother me is being that I do not have any real world practical experiance with switching a model railroad I do not know what will and will not work or how it should work. I am a very hands on guy once I have seen how it works I do pretty well. I just need somone to pound it into my head. What do you think could be done to the design to make it a little more useful both in the yard and for continous running. I really appreciate your input. Thanks, Al
Are you looking for more or less a "trun-it-on-and-let-them-run" approach or are you looking to be fairly involved in passing sidings and throwing different selctor switches between the two trains for the blocks? This may help people in determining the best route to take. Mr X
I don't mind having the passing sidings and having to throw some switches. In some ways that sounds to me to be a little more fun than just turning it on and letting it run. Thanks, Al
Welcome to modeling and to N Scale railroading! Just a few comments: A few of your tracks are probably too close together. When you lay a switch right next to another you get very close track spacing. To open things up, throw in about 3/4 inch of straight track between switches. I point this out because you are pretty much using the whole 4 foot width already and these adjustments on the lower yard area would put you over the edge without some other modifications. (You need to space the two diagonal spurs lower center as well.) A curved track is hard to couple and uncouple on. You have one siding that is all curve. I'd think about changing that and inserting some straight in it. You have to saw back and forth to get to all the tracks at the lower edge of the layout. Can you change these to get to them without having to reverse direction? I think you'll grow tired of reversing so much. You are perilously close to the edge with your track in a number of places, especially with a young one helping run the trains. You can move the tracks back or be sure to put a one inch high lip around the layout to contain accidents. It takes a little time to make sure you have something you'll enjoy. Seeking feedback was a great decision.
Thanks, this is the kind of feedback I am looking for. I will try to make some adjustments and post those. Any other suggestions are appreciated. Thanks, Al
Since I suck at using ANY of the track CAD programs, I just copied your image into Paint and played with it. The biggest difference is that there is no real provision for a yard. The original tracks would have been too close together and some separation was needed. In the upper right corner, I moved the turnout farther to the left on the mainline, extending the passing siding. In addition, I put the stub siding turnouts off of the passing siding and straightened them. This will allow a train to work the sidings without fouling the mainline. I also added an additional turnout off the mainline at the top. This can be used as a short siding, but it's main purpose is to allow or expansion. On the lower end of the layout, I removed several tracks since they were too close together. I extended the passing siding so trains could work the stub sidings without fouling the main. I separated the stub sidings while keeping them straight. I added turnout off the mainline on the let and right to access the track on the bottom. This creates another passing siding, but the track also runs off the layout on the right, once again for expansion purposes. This is a pretty crude drawing, but I think it gives you an idea of some changes that may improve your layout. The most important change is the upper right passing siding. There really isn't any room to have a yard or staging on this layout without crowding everything into a "spaghetti bowl". Stare at it for a while, that might help! LOL Since you are planning this layout for you and your son, I recommend code 80 track for the reasons already mentioned by Mr X. Using code 55 may cause you headaches. It requires much more attention to track-laying and most of your equipment will have to have the wheels changed to low-profile wheels to work on it. Code 80 is easier to get working well. Remember, you came here for suggestions, but that's all they are: suggestions. It is your layout and you're the one who has to be happy with it! Somebody else will have some other suggestions for you, so just keep working at it. Use the suggestions you like and ignore the rest; you won't hurt anyone's feelings! LOL And don't forget to keep us posted on your progress! Darrell, quiet...for now
Ok please let me know what Ya'll think of this one. I tried to open it up a bit and provide a path to expand. Does the switching in the yard make any more sense. I think it looks better then the other one but still not sure if it is better or not. Let me know if you see any potential problems. I really do appreciate all the help and advice. Thanks, Al
Al_T You have a good plan here and there have been some good suggestions so far. I think you are most certainly on the right track by realizing it is better to ask a whole lot of questions now and "get it just right" than be in a rush and try to change it later. Also like some one else said take the suggestions that you want and ignore the others. The only thing that I might be a little bit concerned with is the spacing for the shaded red areas. Any one else agree? The reason why I say this is that it does not look like you leave your self much room at the end of these spurs to have anything but a cliff there. What I am getting at is that there is elevation chages very close to some of these areas. Also what industry would fit between the tracks or why is the track there? I like how the future expansion posibilities are looking in the yard area towards the bottom. The one thing that I might recommend is that you set up the yard in such a way with the crossovers that you have the expansion potentially be a double track going through. So two leads in from the left and two exits to the right. I also like dgwinup's suggestion of having the yard configured the way he did because this actually adds one more passing siding to the layout. So two sidings allow for for two trains meet more frequently and run at the same time. Hope this is helping. Mr X
Ok, I really appreciate all of the feedback. At home I really don't have a sounding board for this so this is a big help. Here are a couple of other options. I also put in several turnouts where possible expansion of the layout could occur. I also change the dirrection of the turnout at the center of the layout. I figure if there is an industry at this location that the freight cars should be backed in. Is this correct? Like I said the more feedback the better. Thanks, Al
Not a problem at all. Like I said before there are a lot of great people here and boy do I appreciate there help! I am not one to give feed back to certain aspects of design. I leave that for the experts. I will refrain from commenting on your latest revision for the moment and let some one else throw in there ideas. BUT I did want to share something with you... another post here at train board. Although the plan I believe has been flipped horizontally it is a pretty close rendition to the one that you are about to start working on. It is posted under the title "8' by 4' 6" Unitrackplan" it was posted by user "completely nuts." It may be worth a look to get a few more ideas. Just click 'search' towards the top right and place the title in there. Mr X
I spotted one more thing that I think you may need to adjust. Normally it is recommended that curved track does not lead right into another curved track going the other direction. Really does not seem to be an issue with "curve by eye" done with flex track but it can be an issue for derailments or uneccessary car swing if you have a left turn 9 3/4 track attached directly to a right turn 9 3/4 piece. I would recommend adding at least a 2 1/2 inch if not 5 inch straight piece of track here to provide a better transition. Mr X
Ok, here are a couple of more revised examples. Anyone have any comments or suggestions? I am very open to input. Thanks, Al
Here are my comments...Attached is my edited image. 1) I would nix the turnout at the top left by the bridge (red X). My reasoning is that this spot is where you need to begin your downgrade to avoid a greater than 2% grade, and I think having a turnout there will frustrate the grade transition at both the benchwork and trackwork level. The other turnout at the top (red question mark) doesn't present the same technical difficulties, but it interupts what is likely to be your most scenic stretch of track along the layout. I think the most sensible place for expansion is in the yard area. (blue question mark area). A good possibility is to simply attach a real, usably sized yard at this location (e.g. on a 1'x4' surface). 2) I've sketched in approximate areas where your scenic elevation changes, in thin green lines. Note that this pretty much dictates which direction your industry spur goes on the top level. You could put a couple industries inside the curve (red line). Also note that your industry spur across from the yard (yellow lines) doesn't really have space for an industry...I think if you remove it, you might be able to get another track into your yard. 3) The yard: On real railroads, each track in a yard area serves a particular purpose. I've laid out my idea with this in mind. There are two turnouts at the ends of the area for trains to come off the mainline. Between these two turnouts is the "arrival/departure" track. The mainline power can then go to a engine facility while a switcher comes out from the yard lead and breaks the train down into the yard, such as it is. Potentially, as mentioned before, the switcher actually has a much larger yard (your expansion) to work with.
OK, Here is another option. Let me know what you think. I think I am starting to understand but still pretty hard headed. Thanks for all of the input. It is really a big help. Al
AL: Your plan is gradually getting closer to protoype yards. If you eliminate the yellow marked siding, it would be possible to run the mainline straight across the bottom of the layout and still have clearance from the cliff. Follow the plan that shows Jagged Ben's blue arrival departure track...it will give you a long straight track with turnouts to the mainline at either end. At the right end, come off the main with a right hand turnout (so the main follows the curve and the straight goes to the arr/dep track just like Ben's blue drawing). Insert a left hand turnout there so the curve goes to the mainline and the straight goes toward the right, but instead of going to an engine facility, have a right hand turout placed at an angle so the curved part of the turnout points squarely onto the arrival/departure track and the straight part slants down to the left. The other end of the turnout will be angled up the side of the layout and can curve right alongside the main to serve as your yard lead. Going through the straight part of the yardlead turnout (down and to the left), will lead to another right hand turnout whose curved portion leads to a yard classification track that runs parallel with the arr/dep track and whose straight part fits into a curve section of track that gives you a second classification track that is parallel to the arrival/departure track. This should give you a way to pull cars from an arrival departure track onto a yard lead without any S-curves, and then drill the cars into the classification yard...again, without any S-curves. mg: Please resist the temptation to put a turnout pointing to the right on that second classification track, because to use it, you would have to make a switch back move that would make your second classification track useless (only 1 or 2 cars long:sad: ). At the left end of your arrival departure track put a right hand turnout whose curve goes to the mainline and whose straight part goes to an engine facility. (If you sort of curve it along the main just like you curved the yard lead on the other side of the layout, you will be able to get a slightly longer loco or maybe a 2nd loco in that space. It would also be possible to put a right turnout there so that the curved portion goes to one engine facility track beside the mainline and the straight portion goes to the left to a 2nd engine track or to a small layout extension with a couple engine tracks and space for longer classification tracks. Clockwise running will be easier to set up in your yard... Counterclockwise will require several switchback movements from the engine facility onto the arrival/departure track, then onto the main then across to the other end of the A/D track to couple with the train. Workable, but a pain...unless the loco that sets up the departing cars is also the same loco that will be pulling the cars counterclockwise around the layout. On your mainline, you may want to consider having all your sidings so they can be served by a train going clockwise unless you have a runaround track for that particular siding. (As above, this becomes a less important issue if you plan on setting up and then running the train with the same loco.) I'm not familiar with the particulars on the Atlas plan you based your plan on, but (if you haven't already done so), consider putting the entire yard (and main between either end of the arrival track) at 1 inch elevation and the overpass tracks at 0 inches and 2 inches elevation. If you don't, you'll need to have an extremely steep grade to achieve the necessary clearance. BTW... Welcome to Trainboard. Your post to start this thread was well-written with very good information. I'm looking forward to seeing pics when you start construction. Have fun building this layout...I think you'll really enjoy it.
Al, I hope a picture is worth a thousand words. Below find an RTS rendition using code 55 rail and switches which you'd have to modify if you go with code 80. What I've done is eliminate a bunch of the extraneous switches in the yard area and created the longest arrival/departure track I could. This leaves you with an A/D track and two classification tracks plus a place to store engines. It may look a little funny to the right but I had to angle the yard lead to make it long enough while maximizing the A/D track length. You really have two yard tracks that are too long and an A/D track that is too short. Maybe someone else can find a way to balance this. I didn't take an extra long time looking at this overall, just tried to get the basic shape and work on the yard and A/D area, which really was a mess. Click on the image to see it bigger. As I look at this a bit later I realized that I could get a longer A/D track. Using tighter radius curves on the LHS I can extend that track a bit and clean up a little bit of track work on that side as well. Here is that design: Oops! That should read 16.25 for the radius on the left not 16.75.
