Hi to all, Some of you know that I am in the process of expanding Atlas N-18 Gulf summit that I built few years ago, and rebuilt it again few weeks ago. I am going to use Unitracks on the expansion which is the size of 4x8. I am attaching here a bitmap of the layout, and I have it in XTrkCad – Thanks to Jim Prince – in case you would like to look at that. As you can see the Blue color is the main line, orange color is the transition to the elevated, and green color is the elevated line which is about 2” high. I would like to have a small down town and a rural residential area on this layout, but I am open to all suggestions. My questions to you are: 1.What improvement do you suggest to do on this layout to make it looks and feel better? What kind of change would you recommend? 2.If this was your own layout what would you do differently? Thank you all for your help and guidance. Mo
One problem I see is that the runaround track at the top is on a grade, so it's nearly useless because you can't leave cars standing on it.
Can you access this layout from all sides? a 4' reach from one side to the back is going to be difficult.
I would suggest drawing / starting with a table space that where the reach is no greater than 3 feet which is the maximum most 5'9" people would want to try to stretch. Even doing so could jeopardize scenery. I have violated this but my layout is only 3 feet off the floor so I can reach the corner by: Standing on something Placing one hand on a reinforced area - that will have a removable building. I don't recommend this
If you build the layout support really solidly and put plastic tips on the bottoms of the legs, you can slide the layout away from the wall to work on the far side. I have an inverted U shaped layout that measures 9' X 9' on the outside, and I can slide the entire thing away from the wall and back without disturbing much. I'd suggest running all your trains to the front of the layout before sliding it back, but scenery, buildings etc don't seem to be affected.
A total misunderstanding Seanm, Grey One and David Leonard, Thank you so much for your inputs. I am so sorry, I misundertood Seanm message. Yes I have access to all 4 sides of this table. First the two table can be separted and both are on wheels so I can get to the top of the tables. Thanks again. Mo
Here is how I might change it: Seems you want to mostly run trains. I Lengthen the yard - helps make longer trains Put a double cross over at the bottom - adds flexiblity in routing trains Removed the turnouts at the top - was not needed Removed the spur at the bottom - you could put it back and use for an "interchage" Suggest using the area to the left of the yard as an engine terminal. Hope this helps
Thanks Grey One, You are always good in your views. One thing, with all these tracks do you think still I have enough room for structure the way I wanted to be a down town and rural residential area? Thank you so much for your input. MO
I'm not sure I can help you with the downtown aspect except that you could turn the yard in to a passenger terminal and then it could fit right in with an space like that. I guess there are other variations but I would have to think about them.
Moshken, I see a couple of things that make me quite uncomfortable with this plan. Maybe you love them, and that's your option. That said, you asked, so here goes... !. You are planning to install elevated trackage crossing directly over the throat of a 4-track stub yard. Guess where most of your derailment issues will be! With elevated trackage on the top of the layout in the works, this means access from there with a long reach will cause problems. So access will be from one side only. With only 2" planned elevation of the overhead trackage, this is not likely to be a "fun" area. 2. Regarding the horizontal trackage pretty much in the middle of the layout (at approximately 2.75 ft up from the bottom), I don't see much usefulness at all here. If you head in, you can't drop or pick-up any cars on the right side of the two tracks. If you back in, the bottom left track is useless. I think I would remove all that trackage and its feeder switch. This, then, would allow you to reposition the yard throat trackage farther to the left and maybe allow for another track or even two on the top or the bottom of what is there now. The space vacated would now be a decent location for your "downtown" area. Be sure to read #4 before you do this. 3. Like Triplex stated, the trackage at the top, being on a grade, will be useless for leaving cars on. Entering into this trackage at the top left the plan calls for the mainline to take the diverging route. That is dictated by the set-up of the switches on the right. This can be made into a passing siding, and a lengthy one, by moving the mainline attachment from the vertical trackage on the right so that it connects to the very top track instead of the inside one. Now insert a left-hand switch where the straight section is in the middle right and connect the two diverging routes to make for the passing siding. You could also move this trackage as far to the right as possible and perhaps keep your elevated concept to the inside of it. (If you want a really long siding, you actually could make the connection all the way down at the bottom and make the hook-up right off the switch whose frog would be almost exactly vertical from your 4' mark. 4. Concerning the stub track alignment in the bottom right, I think it is quite similar to my thoughts in #2. I just don't see what is accomplished by putting the switch in the middle of the trackage. It inherently makes some portion of the trackage pretty useless. Assuming it is trackage you want to retain, lets move the switch that connects it to the mainline to the left and down so that it hooks up with the bottom track. Immediately to the right of that, install a left-hand switch that hooks up to the top of the two stub tracks or spurs, whatever you want to call it. You could remove the current switch in the middle and leave it at that, or move it as far to the right as possible leaving an engine length tail track and let it allow for an engine escape for one that has gone in head-first. This could also be a solution to the track changes I discussed in #2, but I'm still uneasy with the overall picture if you would do that. If you're willing to move that 4-track stub yard, it could come off the trackage in #2 and allow for quite a bit more track in the yard and tracks could be longer, especially if the vertical mainline on the right is moved further to the right. This, then, would also eliminate the elevated trackage passing over the yard throat. Thinking as I'm typing, this might be the best way to go. You could then have your downtown below this yard. 5. I don't know what to tell you about a rural/residential area. Many years ago, it would be common to see housing near railroad tracks so this would be okay to some extent for steam era modeling. Pretty rare these days. You're on your own here.
Responding to your PM, here's what I am talking about doing I don't know your minimum radius or several other specs, but here's a rough drawing of what I was trying to explain in my oratory... It was pretty late and I was pretty tired when i did this. I think it will clean up your design considerably. I'm not really in favor of your elevated line, but its your choice. I think this design will eliminate most of the problems I foresaw before. Additionally you have two passing sidings at A-B and C-D. Though it may not have been so evident, you had C-D in your design. I added A-B. I don't know what your specs are, but the grid lines make 1' squares and I believe I used a 15" min. radius, though I might have slipped a 12 in in a few spots. The stub track arrangements at both the top right and bottom right will allow for future expansion should you so desire. I did make a major change by adding the switch and trackage just to the right of the switch at C. This allows for a complete run-through and continuous running through your yard, if you so desire. You can remove it or relocate it to another yard track if you so wish, but access to your yard track is otherwise pretty arduous, especially if running counter-clockwise on the the very top track from which you will have to back into the yard through several switches. Not a fun concept in my mind. You had the same problem in your design, only from the other direction. If you leave your yard a stub, add engine escape switches out at the end that will allow you to enter engine first and then get back out. The grade you designed in the trackage at the very top was approaching 4% to make it over the mainline at the far left. I extended the graded track further to the right, but it is still over 2.5%. If you have any further questions, email me.
I like SouPac's approach if you want to go with no elevations. Certainly is faster and easier. If I was to go that way I would make it a double track mainline oval. In fact you might even consider Kato's double track with banking and all which _is_ what I am using for my passenger mainline.
Thank you so much Hi Rick, Thank you so much for your help. About the elevation I was asking myself the same question: what is the purpose of the? In this layout the answer would "nothing" just for looks. I don't know if you have seen my current Atlas N-18 Gulf summit layout. This table would be an extension for that. For some reason I put a 2" thick foam on top on the new table which makes the new table 2" higher than the old one. That created a problem for me on how to go from old table to the new one. I did have some choices to make such as cut the legs of the new table to be shorter so both would be on the same level. Doing that would give me more routes to go from table 1 to 2. My other choice was to remove the foam which I glued heavily. The third choice was to take advantage of the stimulus economic pancake and adjust the old layout by building new road which I did. You can see what I did on the second attachments. I did have to eliminate some parts to create a new road to go from the old table to the new one. This would give me only 2 routes to the new table one at bottom and one at the top as you can see from that attached drawings. This choice gave me an opportunity to run 4 trains at the same time with no control. I wish I could have a 5th route on the new table just by itself. I have to add here that I am very new in Model Railroad and my knowledge of it is very little. I do not follow any theme or what era, I just like to see my trains run and the more I have is better for me. Saying that I deeply appreciate your kind help and if you have time you can go and rearrange everything that make sense and make it more practical. My deepest gratitude to you. Mo
WHAT!!!! Whoa Mo! In case you didn't notice, I have a layout I'm working on too. There are professionals who make a living making efficient layout designs. I'm not one of those professionals, and I have too much to do on my own layout to be charitable. I see you are planning on attaching to an Atlas N Track Plan. Except for the "Scenic and Relaxed", most of those make me dizzy. You want to watch trains run, and you can certainly do that with your selection. Most of these however, severely limit train lengths. If you've never built a layout before, maybe you should start with something a little simpler to develop your modeling skills. Maybe an NTrak module, or maybe connect the layout design I've altered to something much simpler. In any case, time and experience will be necessary to build a quality layout. Its easier so solve a few mistakes here and there than a bunch all at one time! Especially in building a specific track plan. Also, I think you need to take into consideration that you, unless you're a circus attraction, have only two hands. I can't conceive trying to run 5 trains at one time on a layout that small. Maybe with DCC and another engineer, but I'm betting you're planning on standard DC. It will be a "track meet" — so to speak! We were all new to this hobby at some point in time. Most everyone on this forum remembers that, so there's no need to feel embarrassed or in any way inferior. Just ask the questions — most everyone here is willing to help. I've been messing around in N scale since 1974 and at times, I still feel like a newbie! Still asking questions online! To keep from being dizzy, I just took a plan and stretched it out to be 400 ft long. Now I've can see and analyze everything that used to be in the "spaghetti bowl".biggrin:biggrin:
Thanks Thank you Rick for your wise words. No problem. Yes I saw your web site and it your layout looks big and interesting. I just wish I had more space in my basement. Anyhow thanks again for your input. It really did help. Have fun with your layout. Mo
This is very good and I like it. Thanks Hello Rick, I think you did a wonderful job in modifying my layout and the more I look at ik the more I like it. I do have all the Unitracks for my layout before your modification, now I have to figure out what else do I need to get. Thank you so much. Mo
It would be a simple matter to adjust it so you could run two trains on two ovals at once if you wanted to. At the bottom you could run a track to from the outer most curve to the outer most track leading in from the right. That gives you one shorter run inner oval and the very nicely done outer one.
