Ok, so I've got the bright idea of making a modular layout. Since I don't have the room for a permanent layout, and I want something that's easy to move and store. What I'm going to do is cut a 4x8 sheet in such a way that it makes two "L"s, with the long parts connected.. I've been dinkin' around in XtrkCad with different ideas. based on some of my "wants": -mountain railroading -long main line running -good track to scenery ratio -minimal grades -non-sharp curves.. I've left everything out but the mainline run in the images, because I want to get ideas on that first.. then I'll move on to sidings, industry, towns.. etc.. here's the overall view (click images for larger views. The lower-most level: And the upper: I'm hoping that I can use the layout for display at some shows, or for the local neighbor kids etc.. so I'm not terribly adamant about having mucho switching, train schedules, or realistic operations. I guess you could call this a "railfanning" layout. The curves are 12" min, but mostly 14" and 16", and I've kept the grades in the two helixes at 2% I actually am thinking of a few well placed switches that would allow and upper train running while a lower train runs. I've been googling plans and reading every "layout discussion" forum I can find for ideas and I'm not expert on design.. Plus, I'm sick of staring that this shape! So here I am.. what do you guys think? Thanks! Tim
There's something to say for a simple plan for a simple man! Sorry, mate, had to say it..... For an exhibition-style/railfanning layout it looks good. The idea of bypassing the helixes (or should I say loops?) to separate the upper and lower loops will keep the trains running without much supervision, but I would have more trackage on the upper level in the open. Just a thought.
I think you are going to have trouble getting the helixes in where you've located them. They seem awfully close to the other tracks in the area. You'll need room to support the helixes and to allow some kind of scenicing around them. Second, I see this as looking like a board with a massive column at each end and a low roof (the helixes and the second level being the same shape and size as the first level). If you want scenery I have trouble visualizing this as appealing. I can't really see the benefit to the helixes as the upper level only has track to join them together (I know you can add more, but the column-roof appearance would still remain). I guess I'd look into creating a layout with multiple levels of track and leave out the helixes. I'd examine creating some scene dividers either using scenery or a divider panel to make the layout seem bigger than it actually is. You'd have the ceiling as the limit instead of a roof-like board.
Yeah, I've been wondering about those helixes myself.. The thing I wanted to avoid was a single lap around the layout. I'm trying to squeeze two laps in, and have an interesting multi layer effect as well. One thing I left out was the scenic dividers.. I was picturing a single board along the length, then actually having the two big "squares" broken into two, or three, viewing areas each. I like the idea of having scenes, so the entire layout doesn't look exactly the same. Here's another revision I'd done, with the dividers in so you get an idea. In this one, the right helix goes up counter-clockwise, then grades back down just after crossing over the lower level in the upper left area. This plan doesn't allow the running or two trains though.. Then there's the very first draft.. pretty basic. I can't really explain why I don't like this one.. I just don't Keep the ideas coming.. I'm still fairly stumpted
I think sticking to one board with elevation changes is the better plan and the design you came up with is definitely a good starting point. This one as well as the original suffers from a lot of track parallel to the edges. That can be disguised a little using foreground scenery and buildings, and you've made your dividers with some angles so it probably won't appear as bad as it may look from a bird's eyes view track plan. My comments are somewhat negative, but the point is not to settle until you've really homed in on what you'd like. One way to accommodate two trains is by putting in a passing siding or two. You don't have a lot of depth, but I think that could be accomplished. I also hope that you can think of locating a yard or some staging somewhere. I know you are trying to get the big picture down, but a feature like that will require some space and will need to be in the plan fairly early. I'll give the plan some more thought when I have time and try to make a few positive suggestions.
Do you plan on having a bowl-shaped spiral helix (constantly changing radii throughout the helix) or a cylindrical stacked helix (same radius throughout the helix)? What is the difference in height between the decks (that is, how much rise do you want from one rail head on the lower deck to the other railhead on the upper deck)? Would you be willing to accomplish some of the rise outside of the helix (for example, lower deck at 38", base of helix at 40", top of helix at 50", and top deck at 52")?
well if I used a bowl type, I could probably fit it in there easier.. less of a footprint, right? The height difference is just enough to have a train pass under the second deck.. so 2", give or take.. I'd actually prefer not to have a helix at all.. but there didn't appear to be a non-sphagetti way of getting up AND down.. So yes, I'd be willing to have some rise outside of the helix.
DiezMon If you use this track plan with the tracks on the lower side of the plan at about 1 inch elevation and the two tracks on the top of the plan at 0" and 2" elevation, respectively, then you could probably eliminate any need for a helix. FWIW, this would also reduce a loop of track that might contribute to your Spaghetti Bowl Factor. The modified plan above will give you a single twisted loop... which will let you display a relative long run of one train circling twice around the layout, but only visible on the side of the layout closest to the viewers (probably a little less than 1/2 of the total run). Suppose you set up two independent loops following about the same configuration, but then connected them with a double crossover (located on the lower side of the plan at the 1" elevation). When displaying continuously running trains for viewers, you could run one train clockwise and the other counter clockwise. Each train would only be visible a little less than 1/2 of its run, but since there are two trains, the total time something would be visible would be greater. When you want a single train to make the longer run of a Grand Loop over both the loop that goes up to 2" and the other loop that descends to 0" elevation, then you switch the double crossover so that each time the train comes to it, the train switches over to the other loop. If you are into operations, you could design an interchange near the double crossover and treat one loop as RR ABC and the other loop as RR DEF, or maybe one loop as a main and the other as a branchline of the same RR. The main/branchline scenario would let you operate the same motive power on both loops and would also avoid the inconsistency of RR ABC power pulling trains through RR DEF towns. You could construct this track plan using the traditional cookie-cutter method, but it could also be done using the simpler construction technique (and lighter weight) of styrofoam risers available through Woodland Scenics.
DiezMon: Some more thoughts...FWIW: 1. If you use foam hills (mountains) and trees to form your view blocks down the center of your two modules, you may have an easier time transporting the modules. 2. A backdrop separating the front and back would add to weight and setup/breakdown time, as well. 3. Even when artfully done, sometimes the transition from modeled scenery to scenery painted on the backdrop is not so smooth. 4. A backdrop also cuts the shelf depth drastically, so viewers only see half of the width of the layout...only from the fascia to the backdrop. When using hills/trees/buildings to form the viewblock, there is a sense that the layout is bigger, even when you can't see what is on the other side of the hill/mountain.
DiezMon and Dave: I too, had been thinking about two separate loops with connecting crossovers. It's already very close to that now. I also think both center tracks should be elevated. I haven't thought about how to accomplish this yet but it would create a greater sense of distance and separation. That's where a ridge or some other scenic device would accomplish what a scene divider board would otherwise be used for. You just might have to push the tracks apart a little more.
Ah, I see what you mean.. a little like this? I'll be tweaking things a bit to get everything to fit well... I like the idea of no helix, and am a firm believer in K.I.S.S These are exactly the kind of ideas I was hoping for.. thanks! I'll probably have a small, to tiny, yard on the bottom somewhere.. and a town on the lower-right, or upper-left so I can fit in some switching.
I was thinking more along these lines...so you could run two trains simultaneously and wouldn't have to worry about them running into each other. (Ok...I know a lot of kids would get a kick out of seeing one train T-Bone another, but my guess is you'd rather not include that on your scheduled events at a demo!:teeth: ) Just as an example of what I mean about using trees and hills as viewblocks instead of a central backdrop: Take a look at these pics of one section of my layout...Kickapoo Yard is on one side of the peninsula (next to me), and the trees form a viewblock in the center of the peninsula that prevents seeing the tracks on the other side of the hills. The second picture is taken from the other side of the peninsula directly opposite of where I am standing in the first picture. Even from a higher viewing angle, you still cannot see the Kickapoo Yard tracks.
Ah ha, I can't believe I missed that. Although it does remind me of that scene from Close Encounters and the figure 8 layout they had in their living room Thanks for the input! I'm going to run with this.. and see what else I can come up with. Thanks!
Ok, here's my newest rev.. I got tired of XtrkCAD-ing the little stuff, so I grabbed the pencil and markers I'm still figuring out what to do with the lower-left. I'd like to have a small yard there, and maybe a business or two. I'm thinking the general theme will either be mountains.. or there bluffs of south-eastern MN. What kind of industry is up in the mountains, besides coal??
This is looking good. Where does the track that comes off the right of the upper yard go to? It seems to disappear. I think you can have a small yard on the lower left. I'd consider creating it off the inner loop so you have a yard on each loop if you want to run two trains and a bit more distance between the yards track-wise if you are running one. It looks like the tracks will have to be stub ended and you may not be able to get an arrival/departure track in, but think of it as a small branch-line yard and I think you'd be OK. I can think of quarries, other types of mines and sometimes the industries that used the mine products, and logging and associated wood industry plants as mountain industries.
Would you be able to have longer yards if made your sidings start in the curve rather than along straight track? This would mean the turnout from the main to the yard would not be set up prototypically with the main going through the straight leg of the turnout and the siding going through the curved part, but for modeling in limited space, such an alternative might work. Will there be a crossing (from the outer loop over the inner loop) to access the industries in the center right? Or would it be less troublesome to have those industries served by the inner loop? I like how you did the river and tunnels in the upper left. The industries just to the right of there may be too cramped and may need to be served by the inner loop's siding on the other side of the trestle/bridge in the middle of the layout...sort of like a branch from the siding up to a logging mill or source of woodchips for paper. You have 2 very short tunnels on the right side of the layout to go through the viewblock/backdrop that runs down the center of the layout. To ease maintenace, do you want to open them to daylight (so they go through cuts instead of tunnels), and prevent viewers from seeing the far side of the layout with the high hills and trees? If viewers will see the right side of the layout between the 2 tunnels (or even if you daylight them) and if you have relatively easy access to the area from an aisle on the right), then you may want to include some buildings or other interesting scenes in that area. Perhaps, because the two loops are so close together there, you could put a ravine cutting down the mountainside and use a different style of bridge on each loop to cross it. Then repeat the same style of bridge in other parts of the loop (for example, trestle bridges on the upper/inner loop and girder or truss bridges on the lower/outer loop).
that's just a technical glitch.. it's just the end of a siding.. not actually a tunnel I've been thinking about whether I want a yard or not.. or maybe just a teeny, tiny one three tracks or so.. Yep, for now it's a crossing.. I was thinkin it would be an interesting switching concept.. but, I'm now thinking of seperating the Y into two sidings, one from the inner loop, and one from the outer loop. That way I can say the MILW switches part of the town, and BN switches the other that's the only part of the layout I'm fairly satisified with at this point.. I may just have one industry there.. to a lumber company or something.. gravel pit perhaps.. Funny, you read my mind! I was just thinking the same thing this weekend. I'm a fan of large trestles, so I think that's what I'll do there It's funny how even when you're using software for designing a plan, I still feel like there's more room for tracks.. when I think in my head that this is a 10' by 6' space.. that's a lot in N-scale.. I still have trouble with the concepts.. I have to SEE the plan in full scale before I'm comfortable with it.. I'll have to get the projector out and put it up on a wall to get a better idea Thanks for all your input!
