8 1/2' X 10' Layout - Comments/Suggestions?

Two thoughts, the crossovers from one loop to the other may be a source of derailments.  I have a similar situation that I managed by moving it to a conner.  The last curve on the inside loop could be a turnout allowing the train to flow into the outer loop.  the second thought is there is no yard ladder.  if you do not add one you will wish you had.

Thanks for that tip, I'll see if I can move it around.  Next, by yard ladder, you mean what?

Thanks,
Mike 

Here's an updated file.  I moved the crossovers like necrails said.  I still dont know what he/she meant by yard ladder.

Any insight?

He means yard lead track! You need to move the switch leading to the yard down to the left so you can switch without fouling your main line.

 

Gunny

Gunny,

I think I'm confused.  Is there any way you could "markup" the picture to explain better?

Thanks,
Mike

Move the switch at the top going to your yard down to the left above your crossover switch,This will allow a long lead to your yard.I do not know how to edit your image.

 

Gunny

Gunny,

I think I know what you mean.....maybe.  You could save my picture by right clicking and just opening in paint.  That's a lot though so I'd understand if you didn't want to.  I planned on having two main lines, the outer loop and next inner loop.  The line running next to my open walkway would be for a train switching loads from the yard

Thanks,
Mike

Right!But until you move the first switch all your switching takes place on the  inner loop!!if you move the switch you gain a long lead both ways thus avoiding blocking the inner loop.

Gunny

Yard leads are a pet preference for some guys because it emulates real railroads and is preferable on a large layout with multiple train operation.  You really don't need a switching lead on a small layout IMO unless you want your mainline train to orbit while you switch yard tracks with a different loco.

 

If you can arrange a couple longer double-ended yard tracks instead of the larger number of short single-ended spurs, that would be my preference to more easily enable alternate operation of different trains for variety. Like many O-gaugers I'm not a big fan of extensive switching, but it depends on what you want.

Yeah, but he has the room for a drill track right at the base of his ladder, heading back up counterclockwise toward the river. And, with a small layout, it would allow maximum action on the loops without the inner loop being fouled. Mike - you probably will think I'm nuts to suggest, but any possibility of reversing loops or, as John Armstrong also recommends, reverting track (basically, a Y somewhere you can back a train onto and then exit going the opposite direction), might add another element. Peter

I would pay particular attention to Ace's good councel on the yard lead question; the other advice is well meaning, but faulty in my opinion. Ace is correct in minimizing the importance of a yard lead on small layouts. On this layout if you are switching you will be paying attention to that task and not be looping trains at the same time. So the inner loop can serve well as your yard lead. You had it right in the first instance.

 

Secondly, the advice to move the crosovers may the most conservative design, however, it is also totally boring compared to watching the train negotiate the lateral crossover as in your initial design. Plus the fact that you have given up the opportunity for the stream crossing, which would involve bridging of some kind. If MTH has a high speed switch you would be better off using that.

 

The one thing I would recommend is eliminating the second small spur track and replace it with some industrial depot or something. A lot more interesting IMO.

Other than that I think you had it right to begin with!

I like the 2cnd version you posted to remove the "S" from the transition from the Inner and Outer Loops.

 

As far as a yard lead, that would depend on if you want to be able to have 2 trains running while you perform switching operations. If you think you'll have people over to operate with you, it would be nice to have that flexibility. If it's going to be just you all of the time, you might not care about "fouling" the inner loop while you perform switching yard operations.

 

Bruce

Ace,

Is this what you mean?  (where the red lines are)?

 

Peter,

Are you saying to add track to the left side of the walkway (right of the river)?  I've thought of a Y, but I'm not too sure about that yet.  It can always be added later....I think.

 

SkyHook,

 

What are you referring to that I had right in the first instance?  (I'm just confused, sorry!)

 

By spur track, are you referring to the area that I would have as an engine shed/house? 

 

Bruce,

Have you had issues with the crossover like in my first picture?  I know its all personal preference, but I kind of like the crossing over the river area.  However, if this is known to cause issues, then I dont want to do that.  

Most likely it will be just me running trains by myself.  I think I understand what you are saying.  The track leading to the yard is not long enough and if I'm switching cars or engines I will be interfering with the inside loop, correct?

Thanks guys!!!

Mike 

Agree with PRR Bruce - it all depends on what you value and how you plan to operate. And do yourself a favor, disregard posts that draw subjective and baseless "one size fits all" opinions, like calling advice on incorporating a drill track to be "faulty." A drill track makes sense in yard operation as discussed in PRR Bruce's post.

When I said you had it right, I meant that that your original design with respect to the yard and crossovers was correct IMHO. The recommendations are OK, however, they seem to be solutions in search of a problem. The third track in from the right corner is the spur track I am suggesting you lose and replace with a structure such as a freight depot or other industrial building which would be served by the remaining spur.

One issue I see with this layout is that you can only run in one direction.  I'd consider adding a (double) reverse loop.  You might need to do a little more than just tweek the design to get it in though.

Pete,

I appreciate the insight.  By drill track, I assume its the yard type layout I have here in this design?  Sort of the drill look?  Or am I completely out in left field so to speak?

 

SkyHook,

Thank you.  In the image below, are you saying remove the set of track numbered 3 and using 2 for a freight depot?  

 

Mike,

Yes, the one direction thing gets me.  However, where the door to the room is (centered at the end of the gray area), I either have to have an open walkway or duck-under type deal.  Ducking under may be a pain in the... for somebody that would come see my layout.  The only way, with help from Ace, that I could fit a reverse loops is by adding an elevated rail or sub-level rail.  Did you have another design in mind?  Also, I see that you have an 8x10 layout, are there any pictures or a link to it so I could see how you used the limited space? (mine is 8'4" x 9'10" so we are similar).

Thanks,
Mike 

Ah ok, yes I see what you are saying now.  In place of the engine house.  My fault.  Where would I "store" other engines then?  Add another section?

Thanks,
Mike 

Mike-

 

Unfortunately I don't have any layout plans or pics where I'm at right now.  Attached is a mockup of how my loop would fit in your space.  It's obviously not to scale, but It would definitely fit.  I'm actually a little tighter than a true 8x10 in some spots and it works for me.  I see 2 main differences between your layout and mine:

- You are doing a perimeter plan with that middle door.  I'm a peninsula layout so I have room for a town in the middle; and

- You appear to have a desire for sidings and a yard.  I don't, so I don't need to allocate space for them.

 

In the attached plan, you'll see an inner loop and an outer loop, allowing for 2 trains to run at once without any control issues.  Switches joining the loops allow for movement between the loops.

 

In my layout the ends of the loops (top of picture) are under a second level allowing for several tunnels.  That second level (drawn very roughly in green) has a simple oval loop as a 3rd line.  My second level bends in in the middle allowing for the 3rd line to have a bridge.

 

I didn't intend to offer a completely different alternative to what you proposed, but since you asked, maybe this (or an adaptation) could be an option.  I suspect you could still have room for the town on the left and a yard on the right.  And like your original plan, this necessitates a duck under or flip up bridge at the door.

 

Good luck.

 

 

 

Edit for clarification - all my loops and switches are O31.

Well, if you need it for storage, you need it and nothing can be done, however, I thought that if it was just thrown in to fill space a better use would be a structure.

 

Bob

Mike,

I really like that idea.  I'm going to have to play with it on the computer at home later to see if that would work for me, It might.  No worries either, this is exactly what I wanted, pros, cons, criticism, and suggestions.  

Bob,

 

Initially I put track there to fill in the empty space, but then I realized, hey, I have a steamer and switcher that I could put there... I know, an engine house!

Thanks,
Mike 

Mike, drill track is synonymous with yard lead. Regarding my initial comment about reversing loops or a reverting loop (if I'm quoting John Armstrong's term correctly), this too is purely subjective. Given the benefits of reversing loops (esp on a double main layout like yours) this was a must have in my own layout. With the curves size I wanted and my layout constraints, reversing loops probably cost me the most sleep.

Ok, updated with 1 reverse loop.  I may end up putting in in a mountain of sorts to hide the 031 curves.  I kept the crossovers on the right and left (preliminary).  More comments and/or suggestions?

 

Mike-  The most obvious thing to me now is switch on bridge at the bottom.  Seems a bit akward.  Assuming you really like that switch to allow for an alternate inner loop mainline, are you open to shifting it to the right so it meets up with one of the spurs rather than the innermost line?

 

As for the reversing loop, it looks good and doesn't look crammed in there.  But judging from your comment about hiding it, I sense you don't like the appearance of very tight turns.  As you could probably tell from my earlier comments, I'm a fan of double reverse loops.  Because with just one reverse loop, once you make one turn, you're back stuck going only one way.

 

I mocked up a suggestion which puts a second loop on the right side near the yard, but it's a much bigger loop.  Your storage spurs can then be inside the loop and would enter from the bottom rather than the current top direction.

Bob

Is that a dig at my suggestion?  It is not impossible.  I'll admit the top left of my new loop is tight as drawn.  But there is plenty of room to make that turn.  The quality of the drawing is a function of trying to draw with a mouse in MS Paint.

Mike,

Yeah, I see what you mean about the switch.  I was trying to keep a section of track close to the edge of the walkway, but it is not a necessity.  I'm open to that suggestion, yes.  I'm not a fan of the tight turns, no.  I know what you mean about 2 reverse loops, I was just trying not to interfere with the yard.  I like your markup, and may give it a try, but I'm not sure it will be that simple.  At the top right of the inner loop, it looks like the markup suggests a switch on one of the 072 curves, I'm not sure how I'd manage that?  Any suggestions?

 

 

Bob,

 

Yes, would definitely need some type of landscaping (if no tunnel/mountain) to hide that tight curve.  The max length of the trains I'm running is a good point.  I noticed that right when I submitted that picture.  My trains will probably be abou 8-9 feet long, so that 031 wont work unless I draw it out some and move the switch further down on the left.  Depending on what I do with the yard, I may even be able to just throw 042 curves in there.

Thanks guys,
Mike 

 

Yes, that is terribly DIFFICULT!!  No fun at all, but your picture did get the point across, MS paint or not.

O72 on that side might be an issue.  A couple options come to mind:

 

-Since that O72 curve is part of the reversing loop, you'd need smaller curves on the other half of that right side reverse loop.  There's no reason curve radii can't be mixed; or

-Use less than O72 curves to make it fit.

I'm suggesting that it's difficult enough to design in an engineered format...to suggest that a rough sketch is realistic and doable...well, anyway, show them to me side by side before I become a true believer.

Look at the posts in this thread and you can put them side by side yourself.  I previously hand drew a reverse loop for the OP which he turned into an engineered format.  The post you had issue with was a second suggestion which essentially mirrored the first.  And it's also patterened after my own layout which has greater space restrictions.  So yes, it is doable.

 

You were quick to jump on my attempts to assist the OP and apparently had issue with me saying the concept was doable.  Yet you appear to fail to see the irony in how you are quick to label something as "impossible."

Looking at the latest layout pic & your comments since I would definately stretch the reversing loop.

For one reason alone - Get rid of that S curve. It's derailing waiting to happen.

Lose the 2 pieces in the S and move the switch down until it lines up.

Moving the switch even farther is better for longer train capacity.

Now, at the bottom where the switch is on the lift up, Make very sure the gate closes level with the tracks on both ends or you are in derail city. Ask me how I know about leveling switches to the track on both ends

 

I would suggest moving the switch left near the curve exit and running a 2 track bridge across the gap. I can vouch for that working, tho I rarely lift the bridge as my hinging is rickety.

Russell,

Thanks!  I'm going to see what I can come up with here at lunch.  I think I may change the curves at the bottom right and left.  Move the 031 curves and mountain to the bottom right.  This way I'll be able to get the switch off of the bridge (I hope).  I definitely want to do my best to avoid derailments.  Also I'm sure it would look more aesthetically pleasing without a switch on the bridge.

We'll see what I can come up with shortly.

Thanks!
Mike 

I updated my proposed layout.  A few things here... I read on somebody elses post about limited space for people to view so I added the circle for more space.  I thought the 2 loops were too boring so I changed the inner loop to come down at an angle (top left), still boring, but not as much IMO.  I updated the yard so that I could just pull a train in and let it sit there instead of reversing.  Removed the crossovers again and put the switches on the curves.  One thing not shown and I havent attempted yet are the reverse loops.  They are going to be subterrain....somehow. 

Again, questions? Comments?

Thanks,
Mike

So, is this too boring?

Is it too boring?  Only you can answer that.  It all depends on what you're trying to achieve.  For example, a simple oval might not seem boring if someone's layout has great scenery and accessories.

 

You mentioned doing the reverse loops on a hidden lower level.  If that's still your approach, take a look at the following thread if you haven't already seen it - https://ogrforum.com/d...75#15649413467293475  It might give you some ideas about how you could use the lower level to create some variety in the layout.

 

Another thought after looking at your layout again- have you considered moving the river closer to the table edge?  It could be a very scenic feature, but might be hard to see on the far end of the table.

 

 

Mike, 

Yes, I know only I can judge, but its harder for me since growing up, loops is all I saw.  I'm trying to get some good scenery and accessories.  I think I might actually elevate (using terrain) the outside loop by a few inches on the top of the loop, so there will be some variation there.  

 

I have not considered moving the river, but that may work.  Before I even started designing this I was thinking it'd be cool to see a river with tracks lining each side, thats the only reason I did it that way.  Then maybe have some tracks running through people's back yards.  Because I dont want to use small (031 & 042) curves everywhere, I'm kind of limited in what I can do.

 

Thanks for the link, I checked it out, but do you think I'd be able to do any of those with the open walkway in the middle?

 

Thanks!

Mike