L shaped that takes advantage of the available space I have: Overall foot print is 6x8ft #10s on the mainline, #7s on the sidings, with one #3.5 Wye. Minimum radius 15" (can't go any larger than that) Tried to allow room for scenery...didn't want the spaghetti bowl syndrome. No grades Main industry will be mining in the top left corner. Please offer any critiques...thanks! I'd really like to start constructing this, but wanted some other eyes to take a look...
Welcome aboard! You have a groovy space for a small layout. Here's some ideas: First thing I'd do is lengthen the passing sidings / runarounds in the middle (red lines). Right now you have only one (top), and the others are too short to do much. By lengthening them, you can have places to pass trains as well as work the industries without fouling the main. I'd move the top turnout right and connect the passing siding to the industry far-right-middle so it'd do double duty (passing & industry siding / runaround). This would also move the turnout from behind the mine and separate the passing scene from the mine scene. I'd have the mine spur come off higher on the runaround. The space in the middle you could have a runaround (green) for the mine or for an industry in the center (blue block) that'd act as a viewblock for the track behind it. Since you tracks are so close together, a height separation would help distance them. Adding a grade (blue arrows) would help, even an 1". You might think about adding a line off-layout, either off the sides or front, that would represent off-layout traffic. If off the ends you could have detachable extension / removeable staging for bringing in cars from "somewhere else" and give a desintation for on-layout traffic to go to. Food for thought.
Fujisawa just covered anything I could say. Two sidings of usable length are much better than three teeny ones.
Fujisawa made some good comments. Definately add the grad where he points out. I would also add somemore grade to the mining spur. A simple 2% would do. Flat layout are construed as 'toy layouts' by some. Real railroads are always rising and falling. Jim
Okay...great ideas! I made those changes and here is the result...only thing I am bummed about is trying to fit in the Atlas plate girder bridge... I really don't see a place to put it. The straight leg of the diamond will have the Atlas truss bridge in that area. Please add or subtract anything else you think may help. By the way...I had wanted to have the passing tracks in the right hand corner concealed behind a shallow hill. Yes...I am running into a space crunch, but given my space/minimum radius...I have to make some compromises. Thanks for taking a look.
Am I allowed one question? What purpose/function will this railroad serve? With that little space I would plan it in such a way to have the scenery suggest the space that isn't there. Or add extra industries that serve as scenic dividers as well as destinations for rail traffic. If I find the time I'll whip up a sample in the same space.
If you really want to use the plate girder bridge, why not cut off the sides and put them on a curve (like the one on the left side)?
Coal mining. Some to be delivered to local business...the rest to be transported off-layout. Really this is just to practice building a larger layout and try out some scenery. It's also something to "run" my trains on if you will, instead of them sitting in the closet! It's not meant to be an uber serious layout, but rather something that met my design constraints. I also wanted a larger radius and turnouts as well...something I could not do in previous layout builds. I'd love to see your ideas...thanks.
OK, here goes. Suggestion 1 modeling an urban area. Have one really long passing siding that is hidden behind the city scenery, camouflage the start of that siding with structures and/or a road overpass. The passing siding by the station is long enough for a reasonably long train that sets out cars for the different industries in town. The interchange track could be used like a fiddle track or you could add on a movable fiddle yard. The turnouts can be reached from the front - except those for the long passing siding. BTW nothing cast in stone, strictly suggestions how to have plenty of switching and still some running distance. With a hidden siding you could prep/run two separate trains.
That's pretty snazzy. If it's going to include any coal-related industry, I'm wondering if you might take advantage of the long main line and add some elevation to it. Then you could have that passing track section (double-track) cross a bridge and "peek-a-boo" from between the mountains. You might even consider running the double track section at two different elevations, then you could use two different bridges and create a neat layered scene crossing some water or something.
hi, before going to the drawing board it would be wise for the OP to tell us more about what he really want with his layout. The kind and length of trains, era and locale but also some information about the way he would like to operate his trains. He might have no idea at all, which is quite usual for newbies; "as long as I can run some trains it is ok, but it should include a bigboy". At the top of this page a thread about givens and druthers is still alive. Every discusssion should start with the available space, a drawing of the room where you intend to build, including obstacles, would be the best start. IMHO radii, switchnumbers and available space are not balanced. The lack of staging or storage tracks is obvious. No interchange either. The very short passing sidings might be the result of running pretty short trains. No need to put a bigboy in front, probably also meaning the OP does not intend to run long modern 89 ft freightcars. So also no reason to use #10 turnouts and no reason to be shy about a 15" radius. Going a wee bit down could make designing a good plan easier. The OP does love to have a bridge in his plan, no reason not to have a few. A road crossing or a bridge over a stream is always possible. Smile Paul
Nice plans guys...thanks! Sorry for the lack of info...I'll try to highlight: Era: '40s - '60s (possibly a little later...I have Conrail equipment). Nothing larger than six axel diesels or 4-8-2 steam, two engines MAX. I am not running very large engines or passenger equipment or very modern equipment (i.e. anything over 60ft). Train lengths would be limited to 10-15 cars. I would like the radius as large as possible...and yes...I realize I am asking for a lot in the space/shape I presented. I love the new brigde kits that are out...that is why I wanted to feature them in all their glory. I would also like a grade crossing of some kind. I am open to other industries, but wanted to keep it to Northeastern coal mining. I understand the design motif for grades...but I really want to avoid them. The scenery I have planned will keep the layout from looking too "flat". I am not as "new" as you think, but I am making certain compromises. Some of those being staging, radius/turnout balance, etc. I have no problem with offsite staging...in fact that is probably the only choice I have. Thanks again for your time on this.
hi geck, since you did not drew a connection to a possible staging yard, even no connection to the outside world at all, it is hard to not mention it. The same applies for the lack of information. Seems to me you have issues deciding what you really want. The equipment you describe is at home in the 70's except for your steamer. Your choices of course. What i do not understand is trainlength. Assuming the average car is about 50 ft long, a 10 to 15 car train with an engine will be almost 5 feet long. Looking back to your first draft no passing siding was longer then 3 feet. The last wish you have is a rail-crossing. I have the feeling the crossing you have in your design is looking a bit weird. The mine could be connected to main directly without any crossing. To include one I would try to find a more natural way. BTW some easy grades are part of North eastern coal-mining, you are not running long trains; why is keeping things flat one of your druthers? Probably my reply sounds pretty harsh, meant positive however. Smile Paul
All valid points! If it seems like I don't know what I want...it is because I want to run different time periods on the layout between the '40s and '60s. Not easy to do...I know, but this would be limited to "Today I think I'll runa 4-6-0 with a few 30-40ft boxcars cars"...that's it. So..for the most part...my layout will dominately be transition era (the PRR)...if that helps... Yes my original design is NO WHERE close to representing the PRR on a prototype level at all, but that wasn't my goal. The "outside" world part was an afterthought...I know it needs to be there, but didn't get to incorporating it on my layout. You are right about the crossing, I was trying to squeeze it in and it screws up the plan. The only way I may get one in is if I have another train line crossing the main at some point. I guess my bias against the grades was I didn't think it would look quite right on such a small plan, plus I didn't want anything ridiculous like a 4% grade just to cross over tracks. Really appreciate the feedback guys...this is what I needed...keep it coming if you aren't getting bored!
I don't think your crossing is in a bad spot. Paul makes a good point about it being accessible directly from the main, but if you hide that small loop (maybe with a tunnel, ridge, trees, building, or something) it could still work quite nicely. Hiding the little loop helps give the illusion of distance, and therefore gives you more flexibility in your story about why the tracks cross there (like maybe originally part of a different railroad line or something). Hey, it's your railroad, your layout, your version of history. On the layout I'm designing, I'm taking lots of detail from a prototype railroad (Bush Terminal Railroad), but modifying it to fit what I like (changed the name to "Shrub Terminal", made it served by my made-up railroad, added motive power such as the boxcab from Bronx Terminal, etc.). Hopefully what I build will remind people of the Bush Terminal and other NYC industrial harbor railroads. But in the end, I'll be happy with my layout. Also, you don't need to do a 4% grade to cross over. If both lines do 2% (one up and one down), you'll get the same space with half the grade. And if you were to take the layout suggestion from Hans-Joerg above, you could modify that back passing track to have one up and one down with a cross-over somewhere in the middle (and even use your plate girder bridge, too!). Just more to think about...
hi the problem is the distance between stations, splitting the distance in two does not bring additional length. In this design the crossing is on a more natural place. No crossover, so the grades can be down a lot. On a model railroad where trains and grades are pretty short a 3% grade or a bit more is not excessive. BTW in all plans trainlength is about 3 feet, yes sticking to the 50's might be a good idea. Your layout, your choices of course. The track behind the green is supposed to be for staging. Smile Paul
Now we're talkin! Both of those are neat, but especially the first one. Making an access port for the passing/staging tracks is a little tricky, but certainly doable, and I really like how a train can leave the scene heading north and re-enter heading south all the way on the left side. I'm assuming your elevation markers are by the inch (as in +1 inch, etc.), and if so then the grades will be nice and smooth, and they'll make for a nice mix of elevations. It's got bridges-a-plenty (straight and curved over a river, straight over tracks, straight over roadway, and road over tracks, too!) and a tunnel, even. Me likey!
