It's VERY prototypical for RRs to do runaround moves to switch facing point spurs. So you can have trains running in both directions on your layout. The Xover on that spur in the middle is a waste of space & your money as it doesn't serve any useful purpose w/ the siding on the main.
Just my opinions and to be taken with a grain of salt. Before I read your posting my thoughts were: Keep the tracks at each corner for expansion and use them for industries for now. Get rid of the "caboose track" - it just clogs things up and will not really be effective Get rid of the first cross over above the "switcher track" - it serves no real purpose Get rid of the cross over in the middle of the yard - it too serves no real purpose After reading your post I still have the same feeling / opinions.
hi, yes run-arounds are daily practice. I left out all your unnecessary crossovers. The long arr & dep track is very easy to have. The blue tracks are for the local switcher, with its own run-around. Two ovals remain, if a train is built in the yard and on the departure track, it is a bit tricky to swap it with one of the other trains. Anyway the other passing sidings come handy now. In my first drawing i still thought the length was 6 feet. IMHO your layout is track heavy, but obviously your choice. Paul
Seems a bit strange that your main yard has two separate lead tracks. There's also no reverse loop or wye. I think you could add a reverse loop by extending the spur that goes behind the end of the yard tracks. Just keep it going until it comes around where it could intersect with the upper yard lead. And by changing to a single lead track (the lower one), your reverse loop could (probably) connect to the inner loop. Also, the crossover track on the two spurs in the right center of the layout seem pretty unnecessary. And on the single spur above those two, you could make it much longer if you move the switch that feeds it to the left. Also also, your two crossovers at the bottom left are right above each other, but if you moved the top one to the left a bit, your trains could cross directly to the outer track without having to make a circuit 95% around the inner loop. -Mark
Still don't see the need for such a long A/R track. Any train can only be as long as the longest siding if you don't want to do sawbys. How about a wye where the F & G spurs are?
Got this link thru a reply to another thread here on TrainBoard for making N scale curved switches: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrAh35XgHqs&feature=BFa&list=SP39AF9D2D08FCF4EA&lf=list_related It's in 6 parts so click on "440 Videos" to see them all.
If I were you, I would ditch the runaround track on the branch and go back to the 'X' style sidings you originally had. Of course, you could keep the runaround track, as well. If you ditched that then you could have a different track serving that industry labled "F", or keep that line and use the other to connect just before the switch connecting track '5' to the tail.
hi, In the original plan the A&D track was just 16" long between the turnouts. By going round the corner it could be made longer. The already tight radius made a turnout before the roadcrossing (at the left side) impossible, hence the connection with the branch after 180 degrees. And yes, the A&D track is to long now way better then to short. Paul
I'm happy with the suggestions that have been posted. I made some more changes, most resembled those suggestions. I'm a little queezy about extending that A&D track all the way around the yard, but I may go ahead and implement this tomorrow. I did extend the A&D track about half way around the inner loop. I'll probably need to cut some flex track to make this actually happen. One thing that bothers me (but I guess comes with the territory when your layout is 36" wide) is using curves tighter than 11". I don't even like using the 9 3/4" stuff as it makes my longer wheelbase rolling stock look unrealistic. One thing that I haven't done but I'd like to do is add a wye or reverse loop. I think the latter makes more sense given the room I have to work with, but I may forego this feature for now. This layout is definitely track-heavy I am totally aware of this, but I really wanted something to switch and fiddle with. I like to make and break trains, not just let them run so much. I'd also like to have a layout that could keep 2 or 3 people occupied. I've given up on the spurs in the corners, specifically the upper left and lower right as I just can't seem to figure out how to work an industry realistically in these locations with the locomotive in first. I just don't have room to run the engine around in these spots, so I'll leave them as dead-ends and try to focus on scenery
hi, sorry you are wrong, those sidings divert from a passing siding, uncouple your engine, run around your train and push the cars into the spur. Then run around the train again and you are ready to go. Paul
Looks to me like you are trying to cram too much in the space. If you were saying that the most important thing to you is to be able to run two trains simultaneously in loops, then this might make sense. But you want to switch. Make something more realistic then. Right now you will be running 3 or 4 car trains. There are lots of older discussions about creating a great yard. You are incorporating all the good ideas, but in this space it doesn't make sense. Stretch the entire thing out by a factor of three without adding more tracks and you'll have a beautiful layout. I'm building a modified version of this: http://www.layoutvision.com/gallery/id26.html With a loop connection on the left side for continuous run. Byron Henderson has many great plans and ideas on his site. Check it out. Good luck and have fun. I look forward to seeing how this turn out.
hi gentlemen, yes LocoHorn i agree with you; I called it track heavy. INMO Byron's Falls Mill layout is great when the OP wants to have a double oval. If a single oval would do I might choose for California Dreaming. Paul
Paul If you're referring to the F & G tracks those are spur tracks not sidings. Sidings have switches at both ends. Spurs only have them on one end. Modelers always mix the two terms but if you've ever worked for the real RRs, the old heads most certainly teach you the difference.
Actually, Paul is correct -- for Europe, where he lives. "Sidings" in the UK and Europe are typically single-ended. The double-ended arrangements called "sidings" in the US are called "loops" in the UK and Europe. So it depends on where those "old heads" you refer to are living.
Hi gentlemen, Only in the UK the word loop is used, since it is the only country where English is spoken (sorry Ireland?). Saw my mistake reading back later, alas had more urgent things to do. The edit function was off later. BTW words like loop and yard have so many meanings, it could be wise to avoid them or add a word like in "classification yard". Paul
Paul, some of my German friends still use "loop" when writing to me in English -- so perhaps it depends on from whom they learned English -- or railroading!
England & Ireland are not the ONLY countries where English is spoken. What about Australia, South Africa & of course USA to name a few. We all all have different words to talk about the same things. Should there be an International glossary here for all the RR terms we are using here? any volunteers? (not me, I'm too busy building a layout LOL) But then again wasn't this forum started in the USA, so who HAS to learn who's terminology?
