Hello everyone. Thought I have a real doozer project for you all. History A lil history about us. Me and my GF, Jordan, just got started with N scale 3 years ago. We didnt had any layout at first. We just simply brought some locomotives and rolling stocks. Last year, we finally decided about having a layout just to run trains around with some minor operations. Also we do want to give our locomotives a home. It either being a engine shed, roundhouse or engine service, either one. But the main issue is... we are currently living in a 600 sqft apartment! So let me introduce you our layout 838! Layout Information: Layout size is 8' by 2 - 1/2' while middle section being 3' by 2' (which means both ends are 2.5' by 2.5') Check the following attachment for understanding and clarification. Scale is N scale. Track being Atlas C55 (at the moment, we do have Kato track setup temporary so we can run some trains). I envision a double track main with small yard and engine service/roundhouse (latter being nearly impossible actually, due to size). I also included a river, two mountains and a mini mountain. The theme is actually freelanced and mix variety of landscape. One end of the layout will take up the look of Oregon Cascade mountains (tall towering, rock face, mossy, etc etc). Mid section will tone down to be as similar as Pennsylvania rolling hills and natures. And then finally on other end will ends up a small mountain size with road leading up to the town. The town will be similar style as Lake Arrowhead, CA. All together will produce a very strong north west feel. Achieving Northwest layout is our biggest goal after all. Pennsylvania is just a twist in a flavor, btw. :cute: Equipment Introduction to equipment collection. My GF is a strong BN fan so we are incorporating BN equipment (Lucky, they do run about in Northwest area). Im also a very strong fan of Southern Pacific. This equipment is added as well. We love Steam to Diesel transitional era because 1. we love steams... and 2. we love the oldies caddies as well. We hauled in lots of SD9s and GP9s with other different locomotive types. We also want to add in Cab forward of Southern Pacific and famous #4449 (both that we don't own at the moment, sadly. Eventually though.) We do enjoy both freight and passenger service, so we will have em. Our longest engine is 2-6-6-2 which ran on our 13" radius temporary Kato track and it still looks great. Other longest equipment would be obviously long smooth side passengers cars, SD60, 85' high cube boxcar, 89' TOFC flat car, 89' tri-level autorack, and others. Again, all ran just fine on 13" radius. Most of the tight curve will be under the mountain anyways. A lil offtopic, we are really frustrated not finding any good SD7, SD9 or SD24 of BN outside of ebay! Wow. Haha. In Progress: We already had the frame and base built, double track mainline shaped up and have both mountains and one small hills base already done. Oh, river is cut out as well. All is great until I got struggled with yard/engine services design. Maybe this is where you guys will come in and help out? . I did included staging yard because... well... we did ended up with lots of equipment after all. Notice, this layout is almost merged with my desk (L shape) which in the end formed a U shape... furniture or something. Haha. So, the staging yard cannot be relocate at all (it will rest above my desk). It will be fixed to Oregon Mountain end. I have include my "latest" layout design and would love some inputs! (PDF is a colored version, showing where the mountains, river, building and road are at. Also showing tunnels. Notice, I doubt both building and road are to scale. It just placement of where things would go.) Design Infomation: Switches: All switches are small peco except for the main line and possible staging yard (ease of inbounds and outbounds) which would be either medium or above. Small yard/Engine services switches will be determined depending on this discussion. Yard: Small yard will be limited to 50' or similar sized boxcars and smaller only. We would love passenger service but freight seem to be better for us. Staging yard will house longer size rolling stocks instead. Other than that, I want to make sure that our long engines wont have any problem navigating through the yard or some ways into engine shed/services. We included switch over (Which is called crossover, right?) That way, inbound/outbound trains can go between outside mainline or inside mainline. Staging yard are connected to outside mainline under Cascade mountain. It was my best effort to find a way to allow access in and out from staging yard to main layout. Bridges: There are two bridge presenting on this layout. South will be Kato double track steel bridge (I switch the track to Atlas C55) and the north bridge will be custom wood trestle bridge (will design in CAD with lots of trail and errors learning experience). Track: There will be future DCC operation, which therefore underneath of our layout is all set for future upgrade. Also do noticed that there is no more changes can be made to west, east and south side of mainlines. We already carved and placed the mountains (although, it is removable should we move out to different location). Short story is, only north side, where the yard action would take place is free for redesign, revamp or whatsoever. I had two variation ideas: the first one is what you see, mainlines cutting through north side of the yard (Mainlines running through north of the yard). Or we can have a "inside yard" which means mainline will go around it. The result might end up a little too tight space for engine shed/services (possibly inside yard with outside engine shed/services). I did also want to add a reverse loop within inside mainline, because I was thinking of staged train in the staging yard will have a easy time returning back. Backing up the whole consist doesn't seem to fancy me the most (derailment is my biggest nightmare, our recently bought rolling stocks [75% of em] are not recently upgraded to metal wheels and a tad bit heavier weight). Please do let me know if any of this is unclear to you. I will do my best to clarified. All inputs, ideas, questions, whatsoever is welcome! I really do hope we can crack this puzzle which plague me for months, lately! Also, I will upload our latest layout picture soon! Oh geez, its 2:42 am, I best be shut up and hit the bed! With much thanks, Al and Jordan.
Al and Jordan - I admire your dedication! Squeezing the layout into your small dwelling must be quite a challenge. I am not a layout design expert, but I recommend that you retain access to the tunnels in your design. It would not be fun if there was a derailment in one of them and you did not have easy access. Others more qualified than me may have some comments on your track plan. Have fun! - Jeff
Any chance of making the staging yard portion of the layout just a little larger? Because the first thing I'd do is use it as a combined yard/staging yard, so that you're not eating up so much of the layout with a yard smack in the middle. If the L can be just a little larger, it might also be possible to work in a wye, which would give you the option of turning trains. And moving the yard out of the middle of the layout gives you room for other features, such as industries to switch; as it is now, you have a big yard, a lot of staging, and not much to do with the trains except run laps. That's OK if that's all you expect to do, but realize that it'll get old pretty quickly. If that's too big of a change, I'll start by saying that I'm quite concerned about the sharpness of the curve at the top right of the loops, near the staging extension, especially as that's where you'll be busy pulling trains in and out of the main yard.
Kenneth and Jeff, thank you for the inputs! Jeff, the mountain are actually removable. Our goal is to make mountain beautiful but lightweight and removable. This solution is a lot easier to deal with any track maintenance and derailments. Also its easier to move the layout should we move out of this apartment. David: That is a GREAT idea. I did kinda approached that idea but I wasn't sure how much bigger should I expand the staging yard, or at least merge it into a yard. A wye would be great idea for turning trains around and doing some switching... even better to open up middle section for some industrial work and or freight depot. This is wonderful idea. Doable but wonderful. As we mention before, we don't mind if our train just lap around endlessly without any operation actions. After all, we can take our trains to bigger layout in our club for even more actions. BUT, Id like some small switching puzzle, admittedly. It does looks so much fun. Again, if all else fail, least I can give you this answer for the tight radius that you mention. It is 9.80 for inside mainline and 10.80 for outside mainline. Tad a bit tight, I know. All because of the connection between staging yard to the layout and keeping tracks parallel to each other. Looking at our layout and desk, Id say the most I can do is make some room for wye. The staging yard is a half foot wide. I would allow at least 1ft by 1ft in south part of the staging yard for wye (it might have to be either curve or angle so it can clear my office chair swivel). Once that's out of the way, I might have to find a way to loosen that tight radius on double track mainline. All is great until... How would one design a masterpiece of yard work for switching and engine shed/service area within the middle section? :frustrated: We must proudly display our beautiful locomotives collection! Here are the following attachment. I just added a wye and fixed the radius. Now my problem is to figure out how to keep/route locomotives to engine shed/service and still have at least 3 potential spot for switching (or more).
The downside of a wye is that it uses a lot of real estate. The upside is that the "empty" space in the middle makes a nice area to tuck an engine servicing facility. Also... something to think about: if you run the leg of the wye, which you now have along the front edge of the layout, through a pair of 90 degree crossings at the middle of the curve you fixed instead, and connect it to the mainline near the former yard area, you can turn longer trains and save some real estate, allowing you to push the engine servicing area toward the front of the layout. Sort of something like this (forgive the hastily Photoshopped image)--
Here's a cleaner version using track planning software to ensure the geometry is correct. Minimum radius is 11.5 inches, all switches Peco Code 55 shorts. Just some food for thought.
That is a lot better. We really like this a lot. Now it just matter of getting our layout ready for it. Thank you for the help, David. Much appreciated!
You're absolutely right. I was so focused on getting the geometry of the wye to work that I completely forgot to include the crossovers. Just refresh the page and they'll appear in the plan. Thanks for spotting my brain fart!
Oh, in the previous plan, there was no crossover? I didnt noticed that either. Thanks for spotting that, Gimp. Sent you PM, David!
Doh! :O (This line is nonsense. Because Trainboard says my message needs to have aleast 10 characters.)
That switchback is a big waste of track & space besides having to do twice as much work to switch one industry. If you really want it just try it w/ out casting track in concrete w/ glue & ballast. It'll be a whole lot easier to change it by have those two spurs cross each other.
A switchback is a classic element of a switching puzzle. Granted, different strokes for different folks; the area is spacious enough to reconfigure into a wide variety of options.
Cajon, I agreed that it is a waste of space and such, but I do like the look of it. I would not want any crowded tracks in middle of the layout. To be frank, I do like the 'twice the work' for my locomotives. Cant bring home dinner unless you get it done! As David said, it is very adjustable at the moment. I have just printed this layout and slapped it over on our layout. Btw, it does LOOKS great! Beside that, unfortunately, I see that I have some minor tweaks that needs to be iron out. I will take couple pics and post em up here. Give me a min or so. Here we are. The track that goes into the yard is fine. It can be our 3rd bridge after all. But one spur nearly went way over the edge of the river. Also, this layout is 1" thick foam and its double sandwhich, so therefore, in that area of the spur, its both river (which cut all the way to plywood) and 1st layer ground. Basically, the spur and the building would be 'floating in the air'. I do want to keep this spur so I can maintain the switching puzzle aspect. So! I see several options presented to me... 1. Push the river back, get more land mass and reduce the mountain base size (thus making Oregon mountain 'sunk' into the wall/background). This is the current presented in the drawing/plan. 2. Find a way to reroute this spur. (Require drawing revision) 3. Shorten the spur. (Require drawing revision) 4. Two story tall building with elevated track? (Require drawing revision and adding back one layer of foam) Also I am highly curious if I can add another spur within the middle of the layout. I do kinda... blame Cajon for it. He does make me wonder if I should get one or two more spurs.
