Hi, I am new to model trains and have been reading a lot on the forums trying to adsorb some of it. I have an oval test track I am using right now but would like to attempt something more complex for me and my son to enjoy. I have been playing around with the Atlas track design program and came up with something I like, but I would like some feedback on any problems you might find with it. I know it looks more like spaghetti than anything in the real world, but to do the things I wanted to do, I ended up using a lot of track. The track is 7' by 3' and has two main lines. The outer loop and the inner figure eight, and a reversing loop in red. Besides the yard work and delivering freight and passengers, I wanted it to do three things. First, to run one train on the outer main then transition to the inner main then back out again without having to throw switches, so I could just watch it go round on both mains. Second, run two trains at once, one on the outer main, one on the inner. Third be able to reverse directions. I plan on using Atlas code 55 flex track. All the main line turns are 12.5 degrees or greater. The turnouts are #7 or larger except for the yard which are #5's. I figured the grade to be about 2.25% with 1.75 clearance under the bridge. I don't even want to think about wiring it. I bought a couple books on wiring but it's going to take a while to digest it all. Do you see any major problems? Jeff P.
Jeff- Welcome to TrainBoard! I have seen many variants of track plans in the figure eight style. It's a very popular format. Don't let it all overwhelm you. Wiring is not difficult. It will not take a lot of time for you to pick up those ideas. Just take your time. The only thing I see, is on your three lower yard tracks, there doesn't seem to be any escape for an engine leading a train in- Unless you are planning on backing in, the engine will be trapped. A crossover allows a way to cut off from the train, and get out. Something to think about. Boxcab E50
Hi Jeff...Welcome. Looks like a great plan. Very versatile. Have fun with it. If you get stuck there are lots of great people here to help you out.
I was only thinking of backing them in. I didn't even think about leading them in and then use a crossover to escape. I will include that, Thanks! Jeff P.
Welcome aboard Jeff, your HCD layout looks interesting and great for your first your off to a great start.
Jeff, First off welcome to TrainBoard. You are going to like it here I guarantee it. Now about the layout. If this is your first one then take some sage advice. Take your time, be patient with yourself and the layout. Let the layout teach you. Purchase some how to books, keep bringing your questions here and most importantly...ahh ...now what was most important? Oh yes, have fun! Sometimes, the fun takes a back seat seems to whither away. Not to worry, you can get it back. As the track settles down in place and the trains start to roll...yep...that be fun. Feel free to do searches here and ask for advice. There is a lot of information available to you. There are times we get heavy into the pro's and con's. Take what you can from our discussions and leave the rest behind. Good to have you here.
It's a great little track plan. But, be aware, you do have a reversing loop in there, by having connected the loops of the "8" along the top. You don't say, but are you thinking about going DC or DCC on this?
It took a couple minutes to scope out your plan. Yes, it does allow you to: 1. run one train on the outer main then transition to the inner main then back out again without having to throw switches, so I could just watch it go round on both mains. 2. run two trains at once, one on the outer main, one on the inner. 3. be able to reverse directions. You probably know this, but I will just note it... If you eliminate and/or do not use the connecting track you marked in red, you can do #1 or #2 without being concerned with reversing switches. Using the connecting track marked in red, you can do #3. So far so good. I was wondering at first about the arrangement in the upper right corner of your plan, where the "outer main" has an alternate route that diverges towards the "inner fig.8 main" and then crosses "itself". That did not seem like something a real railroad would usually do. But then I realized that arrangement is what allows running continuously around both routes without throwing switches. In my "trying to explain to myself", I drew out a simplified arrangement, but then realized it would require me to throw the switch twice for each time around, as trains used one short segment of track to complete 2 different routes. So I could see you had a reason behind it. I do not see any reason for the arrangement at bottom right, where the track into the turntable crosses the mainline. It would be much simpler for the track into the turntable to come right off the mainline rather than crossing it. I think you want to allow a loco to pull off a train on one of the two spurs at bottom without fouling the main. But you still have to block thne main to cross it. It is only 200 or 300 more scale feet for a loco to head all the way to the switch at the right end of the plan and then back to the turntable. Just my druthers.
I would note that with the one reversing loop you can only reverse in one direction (without backing up). If you are going counter clockwise (on the outer main), you can reverse to clockwise but not vice versa. Just in case that matters to you... The good thing is your loop goes in the right direction, in my opinion. That is, you can come out of the yard, go around the layout, reverse in the loop at some point, and the return to the yard, (and run around your train like Boxcab suggested, to "reverse" again). You can switch industries during your trip. Altogether I think it's a good plan for the amount of space you're working in.
All of my stuff is DC so that's what I will go with. Would like to try DCC at some point, but I've got enough to learn just wiring DC right now. Other than the reversing loop in red I can't find the one at the top of the figure eight loop you are mentioning. If I remove the red reversing loop and turn on the short circuit feature of the software, it doesn't show any shorts so I assumed I hadn't created any reverse loops? Jeff P.
Yeah I figured it wasn't going to win any realism awards, but the main reason I did it was so my 5 year old son could run the train around and see it on both tracks without having to worry about throwing switches each lap. I had that arrangement originally and I might change back to it for simplicity. The reason I have it the current way was to allow my son to run trains around, while I did the turntable and yard and would just have to dodge his train. I don't trust himn to slow down and wait for me to cross. If he can crash into something he will. Jeff P.
You know I didn't think about reversing back again, one reverse was as far as I got. But after looking at it again, you're right I can always back through the reversing loop again. Jeff P.
Hi Jeff, Welcome to trainboard. It looks like you have a lot of fun ahead of you for your layout! How many locomotives do you plan to have on your roster to start out with? If it's not that many, you might want to take a good look at wiring up your layout for DCC from the start. My concept layout would have as many DC block controls as yours - and I was getting overwhelmed quickly thinking about how I was going to control two locomotives! The starter set I'm looking at is the Digitrax Zephyr, which can be acquired for around $160 US. DCC reverse loops are much easier than DC loops too (that was the big headache for me) - just get a separate auto-reverser for your red section and you should be good to go. Since DCC layout wiring is so much simpler than DC block control (especially with two DC throttles) unless you have some very DCC unfriendly locomotives, I bet DCC can get you running two trains quicker than DC.
I have been reading the wiring books and DCC does seems easier. From my limited knowledge of DCC it also looks like more fun controlling the engine instead of the track. I have about 10 different loco's right now and most of them are DCC compatible. But I take my son for rides on the Metrolink train and he loves it, so I bought him the N scale version of the Metrolink and Coaster. I don't think they are DCC ready and he will not be a happy camper if he doesn't get to see his Metrolink run. I'll have to take it apart sometime and see if there is room for a DCC unit. Jeff P.
Yes, there can be constraints like these sometimes. One option that command stations like the Zephyr offer if you can't get a decoder into one (emphasis on the one) particular train, it will allow you to operate that train in 'analog' mode while controlling the rest of your trains in DCC mode. Just make sure the train you want to run 'analog' (or DCC for that matter) doesn't have a shorting problem; also, don't leave an 'analog' train on a powered DCC track for extended periods when not moving.
They are not DCC ready, but they are not very difficult to convert, either. There is enough room for a decoder wihtout having to modify the frame any, but it is a hardwired install. If you do go the DCC route, I can give you pointers on this decoder install.
Well that's good to know, and it makes the DCC option a lot more interesting for me. Which decoder would you recommend for Athearn F59? I would like to read up on it. Jeff P.
You would need a hard-wired decoder such as the M1 from TCS or the DZ125. A good soldering iron and some skill with it would be required. My F95 is buried in a box right now, but I believe from memory it would simply be a matter of cutting some of the traces on the factory circuit board and soldering the decoder to them, so that the track power to the lights and motor is interrupted and the components are powered through the decoder instead. If you wanted to be really fancy, you could try adding a separate LED for the red lights on the front of the loco, to run it in push mode. (You'd need a 3 function decoder for that, M3 instead of M1 if you go for TCS.) Maybe something to try on the second install if the first one goes well.
