1. completely nuts

    completely nuts TrainBoard Member

    247
    0
    19
    Hi,
    Since my first post, things are changed considering the space I have for my railroad hobby.
    My first idea was a trackplan which included the famous Horseshoe Curve.(see Horseshoe Curve in this forum)
    But now I will only have 3' by 6' for the next two years, and that is realy small.
    Beeing creative I figured a small but good (I think) trackplan, that gives me the possebillity of continious running and switching in this very small area.
    My question is how can I post this trackplan for your comments?
    Paul,
    CSX and Conrail lover.
     
  2. Alan

    Alan Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    10,798
    460
    127
    Hello Paul. To post a plan here, it first has to be published on a website or photo hosting site. If you do not have a site to put it on, feel free to email the plan to me in jpg format, and I will post it on one of my websites. It can then be posted here for comments, discussion and advice. [​IMG]
     
  3. completely nuts

    completely nuts TrainBoard Member

    247
    0
    19
    Thanks Alan, I emailed the trackplan to you lets see what come up.

    Paul

    [​IMG]

    There you go, Paul [​IMG]

    [ 05 June 2001: Message edited by: Alan ]
     
  4. yankinoz

    yankinoz TrainBoard Member

    1,014
    0
    28
    Nuts- I must say this is much less nuts than trying to put Horseshoe Curve in 3x6!

    So here's my $0.02:

    I'm going to number the tracks in the yard for clarity. Starting from the top down, Track 1 is the main, Track 2 is the passing siding, Track 3 is the stub end track and Track 4 is the other stub that connect to the engine term.

    If you flip the turnouts for tracks 1 and 2 you can relieve the 'S' curves that occur when a train leaves the main from either direction to take the siding (Track 2) - this is a 'double edged sword' in that your main line will follow the diverging route of the turnout. In this case I think the diverging rule is a better one to break - the S curves will give you grief. You may want to consider curved turnouts here, however I don't know if they are available in N scale in a sharp enough radius to fit in the 3x6 space.

    I would connect track 3 to the right side ladder. This will allow a train to come into the yard from either direction, cut off the power and get the power into the engine house without using the main.

    I would consider connecting track 4 to the left hand ladder as it will greatly improve the operational flexibility of the yard. But ultimately it depends on how you want to operate.

    I kinda like the two pronged runaround industrial sidings. An alternative would be to make a passing siding for the main that could double as a run-around and remove one of the 'prongs' that serve the two industries. You could have a switcher working while a train is running laps, only needing to stop when the switcher needs the main to run around. The negative is that you will probably need to cut the yard down to 3 tracks to make room - but that would give you a main line, a passing siding/arrival/departure track and a staging/interchange/fiddle track. Not a bad deal at all [​IMG]
     
  5. rsn48

    rsn48 TrainBoard Member

    2,263
    1
    43
    You have a better eye than I do for this sort of thing. I am not sure what you mean by the turnouts. Without doing an entire yard, can you just draw what you mean by the turnout suggestions you made on the left side. Is diverging points the same as trailing points and leading points - just a different word?
     
  6. yankinoz

    yankinoz TrainBoard Member

    1,014
    0
    28
    By diverging route I mean the non-straight route - taking the left side of a left-hand turnout. So if we have a train running clockwise in the plan above, it will complete the right hand curve, then go thought the straight leg of a left hand turnout for track 1 - no problem there. However, if we want the train to take the siding (track 2), then it will complete the right hand curve and take the left leg of a left hand turnout. This is the S curve I was talking about. It would be better to use a right hand turnout with the main line going through the right hand side.

    John Armstrong describes it better in 'Track Planning for Realistic Operation' in a section about 'hidden S curves' - it's at home and I'm at work so I can't tell you what page it's on.

    I can't draw up a plan and post it from the office [​IMG] maybe tonight... I'll draw the whole thing up with Right Track [​IMG]
     
  7. yankinoz

    yankinoz TrainBoard Member

    1,014
    0
    28
    I haven't forgoten about this - just been really flat out all week. Its a long weekend in Oz and the NMRA convention down under is this weekend. I should be able draw up something...

    Nuts - Are you figuring on #4 turnouts - I started fittin' number 6's into 6 feet and is seems to take up alot of space even in N. What's size turnouts are you using and what's your min radius (I assumed 12")
     
  8. completely nuts

    completely nuts TrainBoard Member

    247
    0
    19
    Thanks Alan for posting the trackplan.

    Also thanks to Yankinoz for the clear advice.

    I think I have to do some homework on my small yard section, the top section with the costumers will be left unchanged.(I stole the idea from maps of the port of Antwerp here in Belgium, the Belgian railroad uses this arrangement often in the harbor area.)

    I would like to start my first and very small layout with the track I have bought, beeing a newbee I ordered Atlas sectional track(6 LH #6 turnouts 6 RH #6 turnouts and a bunch off straight and curved 11" radius and 9.75" radius) and this seemed not the best choice after all.

    But one has to use what we have, and if I have a complete spare room within 2 years it will defenitly another brand of track (Peco flex I think) to build my dream layout.

    Until then I can test my skills with the Atlas (never balasted any track yet) and hope to learn a lot with this small layout.

    The only reasen I asked if this could work was that if I build this one it should be able to be operated.
    Thanks for help and enjoy the hobby,

    Paul alias completely nuts
     
  9. yankinoz

    yankinoz TrainBoard Member

    1,014
    0
    28
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by completely nuts:
    (I stole the idea from maps of the port of Antwerp here in Belgium, the Belgian railroad uses this arrangement often in the harbor area.)
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Paul,

    Well I sure can't argue with that! Track arrangements based upon prototype are always the best, because you can guarantee they will operate exactly like the prototype.

    As for the #6 turnouts - I don't think you will be able to fit 4 tracks into the one side. Here is a quick 'sketch' with Alas Right Track Software - it if free at www.atlasrr.com and this is one of the first times I have used it. These are number 6 turnouts and 11" radius curved sections.

    [​IMG]

    You can see that the 11" curve and the four turnouts eat up almost the whole of three feet! Does this clarify what I was saying about hidden s curves and diverging routes?

    If you duplicate this arrangement on the left side, then you will have a short stub end yard on the left (one or two tracks) that would make a good interchange yard where you can 'fiddle' cars on and off the layout. IMHO I think the ideal situation would be a three track double ended yard with the engine facilities on one side (as shown here) and an identical arrangement on the other side with one or two tracks as a fiddle yard.
     
  10. completely nuts

    completely nuts TrainBoard Member

    247
    0
    19
    Thanks Yankinoz for advice.

    Well the curves I use are 9.75" with 11" easements and I layed the track down on my plywood plate (not nailed yet) and everything fits.

    I will only run 4-axle diesels and maximum 50' rolling stock maybe this can work.

    Concerning the yard, I think I will change this, because you had a good point on the S-curves.

    Paul,
     

Share This Page