Mark: Yes!:thumbs_up: Your picture is definitely worth a thousand of my words... Al: What Mark has drawn is what I was talking about except he left in the industrial track that I had taken out so there was space for a slope to the higher level track instead of a vertical cliff. Does anyone have information on what minor differences there might be between Code 55 and Code 80 turnouts that would affect the spacing of tracks? (What we need to know is if Mark's plan can still fit in the space available if Al uses Code 80 instead of Code 55.)
One thing I know is that Code 80 turnouts are 4's and 6's, whereas Code 55 are 5's and 7's (and now 10's!). Thus if Al used Code 80 #4's he should have an easier time fitting things in than I did with #5's. I think the switches themselves are a bit longer in Code 55 also. So Code 80 ought to work. He will have to use flex track to get the curves I used. Code 80 set track is pretty limited there. I almost left out the left industrial track, too, since there isn't much room for it.
Mark, Thanks that is what I was looking for. Thanks for the help. What code track would you recommend. Do you think maybe Peco code 55 would be better than the Atlas code 55. Or should I just stick with Atlas code 80. Thanks again Al
YES! YES! YES! Mark did it!! That's the trackplan I'd go with! (As a matter of fact, I might STEAL that design! LOL) There are some differences between codes 55 and 80 that you should be aware of. Atlas is true code 55 and may not provide enough clearance for the wheel flanges of your cars and locomotives. Peco code 55 is actually a code 80 rail embedded deeper into the ties to give the APPEARANCE of code 55 without the flange interference problem. Tie spacings on Peco track is different from American railroad practices. IMO, once ballasted, it doesn't make enough difference to worry about. If you have a collection of locomotives and rolling stock, you might want to buy some Atlas and Peco code 55 track and turnouts, set up a test track and play with it. If you haven't started a collection of rolling equipment, your choice of track will depend on how you like the looks of the respective track. Mark has really improved on what started out being a pretty good layout! It can get demoralizing to put a favorite track plan on the forum, only to have it torn apart by others. Not a practive for the faint of heart! LOL In your case, the end results are well worth sacrificing a little pride. I hope you build this layout and keep the forum posted on your results. It will be a real beauty! Darrell, quiet...for now
Peco also has a different switch geometry. Instead of numbered straight-frog turnouts, theirs have a continuous curve on the diverging leg.
I am just thankful to everyone for their good adivce. For me it is hard to be demoralized when I don't know squat. I am pretty hard headed but not stupid and I am not scared to ask questions when I know I am in over my head. By far this is the best model train forum on the net. There is more activity and from reading responses I determined that the knowladge base is pretty dang deep. This is the reason that I joined the board. I have not started collecting rolling stock yet. Do all the newer engines work fine on the Atlas code 55? If that is the case I do not see the need to go with the code 80 and will just go with the Atlas code 55. If not I might try to go with the code 55 Peco being that it does not have a flange clearence problem or the easy way out is just code 80 Atlas. I will build this layout. I have seen many layouts and knew that when I saw the right one I would know it. Mark did a fantastic job of taking what I was wanting and thinking of and putting it on paper, thanks alot I appreciate it. I should be able to start on the bench work in the next couple of weeks. I am doing some spring cleaning in the garage right now and almost done with that. I will keep ya'll posted on my progress. If their are any other suggestions please feel free. Thanks again, Al
Here is just a little update. Mark was kind enough to me to e-mail the rts. file of the layout he has came up with. I re-drew it in Atlas code 80. This is the pic of it. I have also done some looking around and it appears that Peco has number 4 and 6 straight turnouts kind of like the Atlas turnouts in code 80. So this plan should work as well with the Peco. Now I just have to decide if I want to use Atlass code 55, Peco code 55, or Atlas code 80. Again thanks for all of the help. I will keep ya'll updated on my progress. Hopefully I will get started on something in the next week or two. Thanks, Al
Al: I think you'll be very happy with the overall plan of this layout. One minor tweak that will eliminate any S-curves in your yard ladder: the turnout at the right end of the yard that goes from the yard lead track and splits to go to the arrival-departure track and to the two classification tracks is shown as a left hand turnout in your plan. If you put a right hand turnout there instead, you will eliminate any S-curves as you drill cars into the classification tracks or onto the arrival-departure track. If you used a left hand turnout because you wanted more separation between the yard lead as it goes up the right side of the layout and the mainline track for appearance's sake, then you could put a short straight piece of track connecting from the right hand yard lead turnout to the arrival-departure track. This will also give you the option of adding similar length to the two classification tracks. While this change won't affect the overall appearance of your plan too much, it will increase the overall reliability of car movements through the yard turnouts a lot. Now that you've established your basic track plan, what are your plans for specific industries and scenery? Depending on what industries you prefer and the shape and sizes of the structures you select, you may end up fine-tuning track arrangements on your industrial 3 sidings. Also take a look through some of the railfan and modeling pics in Railimages for scenery you'd like on your layout.
Dave thanks for the suggestion I did not even think about that turnout Here is the changed copy. I was just being stupid, when you look at something long enough it all looks right. I am still looking at pictures trying to decide on industries. I will keep ya'll updated on how it is going. I have been thinking about the benchwork and how I will do that I have a few ideas and need to sketch them down when I get some free time. I have a really busy work week so I will try to do that between paperwork. Any suggestions on the track code. I don't want to do something and later say I wish I did this. For me that is the worse kind of remorse. Thanks, Alan
This looks pretty good in code 80. One thing that isn't worked out is the elevation change for the cross over in the middle of the layout. I played with this a bit and actually came to the conclusion that the cross over would be better if the double track section passed over the single track one. This has to do with the yard wanting to be level and probably at the base level of the layout. If you try to make cross-over clearance from base level starting on the right hand side of the yard you really don't have enough track distance to do it. You've got what seems to be enough distance to make that happen from the left hand side of the yard. Do think about this. Perhaps others will see it diffently. Best of luck as you move forward with your plans.
Mark: I worried about that too, but decided if the yard is at 1 inch elevation and the grade at the right end of the yard starts uphill about 2 feet in from the right edge of the layout (about where the mainline and arrival departure tracks go from curved to straight), and the grade downhill starts about 2 feet in from the left edge of the layout, then he can rise to 2 inches elevation on top and drop down 1 inch going the other way around the loop to pass underneath at 0 inches elevation...and only have about a 2% grade.
Dave, Mark, thanks for the help I think I can do it but have to put my ideas down on paper and figure the slope with the availabel run. I just did not have had time today. I started working at 8:00AM and just finished at Midnight. Kind of makes for a long day. I will have more of the same tomorrow. If you guys get anything figured out let me know. If not I might get a little brake tomorrow and may be able to figure some of it out. Thanks, Al
Looking good...that yard might now be the best you'll ever see on a 4x8! Keeping the grades under 2% was always going to be tricky with this plan. Personally, if it were me, I'd be willing to fudge that to 2.5 or even 3 percent. You need about a 2" height difference where the tracks cross over each other. The idea of having the yard at 1" above base elevation and going down to the left side and up on the right will work therefore. Your run from the yard going around the right to the bridge looks to be about 50 inches. That means a 1" rise for a 2 pecent grade. You can probably lengthen this run a little by expanding the curve into the upper right corner of the plan. If the run were 60 inches and the rise were 1.5" inches, you'd have a pretty acceptable 2.5 percent grade in this one spot. Then you could have your yard at .5" and have a barely perceptable downgrade around the left side your layout.
That's how it looked to me but I didn't do the calculations. If it were me I'd like the yard not to be too high. I'd rather have height toward the 'back' of the layout. It looks like it can work either way with a small change in yard height, so Al can take his pick.
This is probably true for 95% of us mg: Unless you meant that when talking trains, my wife thinks I'm just sounding and she's just bored, then you're spot on! As for the trackplan - I'd stay away from inclines, period, unless your trains will be less than 8-10 cars long (my personal opinion). I regret the inclines I made, although I had a fantastic time building my custom bridge.
