Corey and Jerry, I first want to thank you both for all the input you have both given me on my original track plan. It definately has come a long way in the past couple weeks. I have decided to combine both your ideas and here is what I have. Took me a little bit to get the curves right for the A/D track but I think it came out pretty well. I really like this plan alot. Please let me know if you think what I have here is a pretty solid plan, or if there is anything else you think I should add or change. Thanks again!:thumbs_up:
David, I see an option that may provide more operating excitement at a cost of a couple of switches. It involves creating a passing siding on the right side of the layout as indicated in my partial track plan. Jerry
I actually like this idea. I couldn't get my switches as close together as you had, but pretty close.:thumbs_up:
Looks good to me, actually better. As I look over your track plan there is one more subtle change(s) that you can make to put the finishing touches on your design and that is the use of easements upon entering and exiting all mainline curves. This amounts to nothing more than using as broad a curve section as possible at the start and end of a curve, even if that means tightening up the radius in between in order to make it fit. The purpose / advantage to using this technique has to do with smoother operations, better appearance, less whipping action of rolling stock and the ability to run a long train without derails. More food for thought. Jerry
]Thanks Jerry. I have actually gone back and changed a few things with the layout. It seems that some of the first modifications that were made actually caused the layout to exceed the length of my table just a bit. I also noticed that when I started putting the layout together, a few pieces of track were not flush with one another so I had to modify a little more. I've noticed that sometimes Xtrakcad will let this happen from time to time. None the less, after a few hours of modifying I think I have it. I also include your original idea for the run around and track lead up top. With the radius changes I was actually able to fit it in now. I need to buy a few more right hand turnouts and this portion will be completed. Then I tackle the yard! :tb-biggrin:
I cannot take credit for the run around design, it was in your original design and then the switches were flipped to prevent "S" curves and extend the siding. The siding (run around) is not required unless you want to swap ends with the loco and pull back into the yard loco first. I have also run into discrepancies with AnyRail on occasion and have had to make adjustments on the fly. Your track plan has evolved nicely and you have taken the effort to understand the principles involved in designing and operating a model railroad.:thumbs_up::thumbs_up: Jerry
David, I'm just brain storming now; however have you considered a closed loop design? It may not be practical for your locos / rolling stock due to the tight radius curve on the two foot width section of the bench work and there could be reach issues. The fact that you have access to all sides of your layout is what has compelled me to search a little deeper for this answer. I'm just doodling with the CAD program. Jerry
I know its been a while since my last post, but want to update everyone on my latest design for the layout. I've had another group take a crack at it and this is what we've come up with. Please let me know what you think. Any and all suggestions / comments are welcome.
David, I am impressed with your determination to develop an ultimate layout. A successful layout involves getting the track plan, structures plan and scenery to all mesh well together. I like the addition of a reverse loop that will allow trains to pull back into the yard loco first after completing the loop. I like that you moved your heavier industrial section next to the yard. That has given you more scenic running on the main layout. I would consider eliminating the crossover at the CSX interchange or at least changing it so that the mainline does not run through the curved leg of the turnout. I would prefer a bridge over the river followed by a turnout where the spur leads to the mine. I would also rethink your choice of not having a dedicated yard lead considering that you plan on having more than one operator. Keep us posted. Jerry
Thanks Jerry! Based on some of your suggestions, here is what I have come up with. Here is the original layout design. Here is the same design with two bridges added after the turnout and a shortned run around track. Here is the same design with the two bridges, crossover and a drill track. And this last one has the bridge before the turnout, crossover removed and a drill track from the yard.
David, I like the single bridge and the run around that doubles as a long passing siding. One bridge instead of two makes more sense from a railroad's cost standpoint. The run around / passing siding change also establishes the mainline and eliminates two switches.:thumbs_up: Your yard still troubles me. I liked what you had going with the attachment in post #45. The A/D track entering the yard did not foul the yard lead; which allowed the yard operator to work the yard with less interruptions. On the other hand I like the way your engine facility is currently laid out and the industrial section. I would consider a marriage between the two designs. It would require flipping only the yard / engine facility. Serving the industries would be done by crossing over the A/D track. This approach would be highly prototypical in design and operations. Looking good so far. Jerry
