David- I definitely like that. I see a few modifications that would need to be made. Namely, the bridge across my water feature as shown below: Also, any chance you could re-post that with Kato part numbers? Most are easily identifiable -just the curved track is a bit harder to figure out. David- what is your opinion about my original design? Don't worry about hurting my feelings. Originally, wanted a bit more of a flowing-organic look, like your example. Then one utilitarian decision after another, and the layout began to appear more linear/oval/blah.
Also, I should note that I had planned to have two double-wide truss bridges inline, spanning the wide part of the bay/water feature. I am willing to do away with the inner single-wide truss. At the shoreline where you see the exposed wood, I would like to a marina/boardwalk/wharf type area. I would love to achieve something like this Z-Scale wharf I saw at the WGH Show in Sac:
I don't need to express my opinion; you already did that: linear/oval/blah. As for the waterway features, I really don't think that should prevent you from doing something different. I've always held the opinion that anything can be changed. It will sometimes be an effort, but in the end, if the change makes an improvement, then it will be worth that effort. I will say that re-creating Robert Ray's marina may be a bit of a squeeze under the current layout size constraints--at least not without a fairly substantial re-design. I'll post a plan with part numbers shortly.
LoL! Yeah, initially it looked kind of cool. And mind you, I am still totally new at this again so I don't want to bite off more than I can chew. That's part of my reason for avoiding grade changes & over/unders. But I absolutely appreciate your insight. Also, I didn't mean to imply that I have anywhere near the skills required to "re-create" his work on the marina. But I certainly plan to use it as inspiration! That marina & Boise Cascade Lumber Yard module was hands down, my favorite part of the WGH show.
Here's something to consider. I went back to what I'd done before with an eye toward making room for your marina, and also preserve your initial desire to have a small yard. This would still require modifying the existing benchwork, so I'm not sure how you'd feel about it... And an alternative arrangement-- Caveat: switching operations on either one of them will be hampered by the lack of an adequate runaround. They are presented more as runner plans than ops plans.
David- for one, I'm really loving the both designs. I think I like the first one more. I'll have to take some measurements and further analyze things, but I can very much see moving forward with this design. At first glance, I mainly question if the bridge over the main part of the bay is long enough to span the water. This can be adjusted either by track or by landscape. NBD. Also, I don't know that I'd bring the water all the way along the front edge, and modify the benchwork. Again that's no big deal, I can do a different industry there. Forgive my limited knowledge, but can you use layman's to explain: "switching operations on either one of them will be hampered by the lack of an adequate runaround. They are presented more as runner plans than ops plans." From what I can see, there would be some switching operations to take place. Then again, I don't know much!
In both plans there are sidings that will need cars set out and picked up. In particular, there are sidings connected in both directions (a.k.a. facing and trailing) relative to the direction of travel. In order to do some of the switching moves, the locomotive will need to uncouple from the head end, run around to the back, uncouple the caboose and a car that it will set out on the siding, or couple a car to the train it picked up from the siding. These moves require a runaround, which is either a length of double-track that has crossovers at each end, or a length of single track with a parallel siding connected to it at each end. The runaround needs to be as long as the longest train you intend to run. Having said all of that, if your interest is not in performing all of these switching operations, but simply running trains, then a runaround may not be worth the effort to add. As it stands, it would be difficult to incorporate one into the existing plans. By the way, if you intend to build either plan, you will definitely need to make changes to the existing benchwork. The bridge over the bay cannot be adjusted, as there is no place else to put the crossovers. EDIT: I tinkered together a plan with a nice runaround, which also serves as a yard lead (a length of track used during yard switching that keeps the train from occupying, and thus blocking, the mainline). It's not ideal--some of the switching moves will be rather complex owing to the way it's connected to the mainline relative to the crossovers--but that may spice things up. Also, it makes one switch difficult to reach; this is something you may need to test for yourself.
Hi Noah, David drew some very nice plans, though I do have a question for you. In his last plan you are able to let orbit two trains unattended, while at the very same time you can switch the yard. Making up a new train or picking up or spotting cars to an industry. Only for the industrial area near the port the mains have to be used. Some would die to have those possibilities. If you have the feeling that one orbiting train is enough while you are switching, or even have the notion a train passing by every 10 seconds is not what you are after, a different set of requirements could be chosen. Maybe a part of the doubletrack main can be (partly) concealed, so it can be used for holding a train till its next appearance. If this idea is appealing to you, you'll have the time to use the main for switching purposes too. That time frame might be limited or not (your choice); this is not uncommon in real life. It can even add to the fun. Anyway the number of trains you want to operate at the very same time is a major design question, you are the only one to answer it. Some remarks about David's last plan. *I would not build the industry at the left, the one with the extra bridge. I would keep that part "scenery only". *The upper track of the yard could serve one or two industries (as compensation) *I would keep the interchange track, as on my plan, in the lower left corner. *By hiding the main behind those industries and a short tunnel you are able to use that part of the main for holding a train. (staging) *The choice between a longer harbour side or a dedicated yard lead is a tough one. In the end I would probably choose the first option. Since you like making plans yourself so much, drawing one yourself is not that difficult. It is often more about the ideas then the actual drafting. On the drawing I made about 95% was done with snaptrack. Only some filler pieces were drawn with the flextrack option. It can however become rather time consuming to find the proper "shorts" to fill some gaps. Smile Paul
Okay okay, I gotcha. That was a great tutorial that every beginner model railroader should read. Most of us beginners likely add turnouts/switches with little understanding of the proper objectives. I for one, obviously didn't have a full understanding of the switching moves. However, now I can see the operational benefit/interest of features like the added with the runaround. With a smaller layout, I feel I want do have more action than just running trains. I do see that I would have to modify the existing benchwork to use this exact layout. First, I was going to recreate and analyze the layout in AnyRail to see if I'd be able to make slight track adjustments to work with my existing benchwork. It's not so much that I'd mind doing additional construction, rather, I haven't thought of any feasible way to make the proper adjustments. Thanks again for all of the help, David!
Glad to be of help, Noah. FWIW, here's Paul's last plan "Unitracked"-- The main benefit I see is that it better fits the existing benchwork. While it the independent runaround, the placement of the crossovers on the mainline effectively provide one; however, now you cannot run any trains on the mainline while doing switching maneuvers simultaneously.
I'm not sure I completely understand your question, but I originally planned to run no more than 2-3 trains at once (DCC, of course). Having two "orbiting" trains while I run switching operations sounds awesome. Also, this seems like it would be a great beginner-ish layout that would provide interest for me for quite some time. I see many other layouts and think "man, that looks like it'd get boring rather quickly." I have used AnyRail to draw dozens of layouts. But my lack of experience hinders my ability to produce an objective layout that is more interesting than an oval. Thanks for you help, Paul!
"Unitracked" ...that made me chuckle. Well crap, I really do like that this version would work on my existing benchwork, but you also got me sold on that runaround! Decisions decisions!
David- I was recreating your [awesome] design in AnyRail and I'm having a couple minor connection issues: on the lower left, where the LH #4 Switch (20-220) and the two RH #4 switches (20-221) meet the bridge (20-401), there is a gap of maybe 5mm. I some various tricks of shifting them around, varying sequence of connections, right-clicking > connect, etc. Then, on the right side, if you follow the widest radius track (20-132) down to where it meets (20-221), (20-220) & (20-160), that intersection is having connection issues. I know the program can kind of just act funky sometimes. Should I just forget about it on the program, because it'll likely work in real life?
I ran in to the same issues with planning on scarm. I am letting it go because i know that i will have some give in me layout to connect my track. So i would not worry to much about it especially if they are minor gaps. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
The program is not acting funky. There are some tricks in AnyRail that allow you to simulate the fact that, in real life, Unitrack has some physical give; you can (within reason) do a little pulling here or pushing there to get the track to connect. Basically you right-click on a connection, select Disconnect, highlight one of the two pieces of track, use the arrow keys to nudge it toward or away from the other piece (usually just one keystroke is sufficient), right-click on the connection again and select Connect. It's really a lot simpler than it sounds when written out, and after a while it becomes second nature. That said, nothing in life (or in software) is perfect, so be prepared with some spare short sections when it comes time to build. For instance, if you find the switches at the lower left are not connecting with the bridge properly, then you can make use of the fact that Unitrack has two short straight sections that are different lengths by just a few millimeters, and insert then before the bridge, as shown: You can also spend lots of time "massaging" the plan to make it better. For instance, in the version above, I was able to increase the radii used in the curves at the top left corner. And I found a few locations where multiple pieces of short straight track could be consolidated into single longer ones. If you want, I can email you the file to play with.
Good call. I could use 60, 62, or 64mm pieces as needed in those spaces. - - - Not that it really makes a difference, but the only other thing I might change about the design is to remove a few spurs, just to save a little cost on buying more #4 turnouts. Again, I'm a newly married, young professional in a crap economy, so I have to watch my spending on this hobby :droll: Although, I'd like to keep them all if I can help it. As a beginner who wants a "real" layout, there is a lot to acquire: locos, rolling stock, DCC system, construction materials, special tools, landscape materials, wiring/electronics, buildings, details, etc. A basic layout like this can easily put you up to a few thousand bucks in a short period of time. That being said, the beauty of the hobby is also that you can do it all incrementally.
Hey everybody, Not much has happened as I'm waiting on the rest of my Unitrack to get the entire footprint of my layout down. But I did create an updated conceptual rendering in Photoshop:
