Comments Please

Pontiac787,

You only need a passing siding in your current design if you plan to run three trains because, right now, you have no way to move trains from one loop to the other.  That also means that trains on one loop will always run the same direction which can become boring very quickly.  You might be better off with just one reversing loop (even if you have to back a train through it to reverse its direction) and using the other pair of turnouts to make a crossover between the two loops.

Finally, a 6% grade will make it nearly impossible for most engines to pull anything up to the top.  Heck, they might not be able to get there themselves.  4% is usually the maximum grade most here would accept, I believe.

Sorry to be so negative.

Chuck

"Constructive criticism" It's better to know it now than latter.  I just cringe when I read some of the "likes" or "comments" on these posts advising people to construct a track plan that has fundamental flaws, i.e., too tight curves, too steep grades, etc.  I'm with you PRR1950.    

Thanks for the comments.  Here are some of the thought behind the initial design.  The purpose of the run-around was for cutting out cars. I know that 6% was steep but I thought that I read that was the grade used for the over/under trestle sets from MTH and Lionel.  I can elevate the outside track to decrease the grades.  I was planning on leaving the two tracks separate for now but adding another table to make a U in the future and connecting them on that.  I'm open to cutting back to one reversing loop and using the other four switches to connect the loops but I don't think I have room. 

well I disagree with the otter 2 posters I find your layout interesting and simple. I would not eliminate that figure 8 as it allows that train to turn and go either direction the other level you can address when you add the other part of the 4x8 to create the U shape in mean time your hands can turn the engine to run in opposite direction. sometimes simple outguns the wholly smokes effect.

changes yes to make the upper level only going down to 4" trains will negotiate that easier yet give variety and if you scenic it a hill declining adds to the effect.

will you be able to walk around the entire layout? if you can create a view block it will break up the round and round effect.

best advice I can give is take all track create it on the floor using whatever to create the elevated line if a smile and happy feeling emerge go with it after all you are the one that has to like it and nobody else that is why were individuals and each has there own preferences.

$oo

Just a quick comment, it appears to reach anything on the inside of the layout I must lean over elevated track, this greatly reduces what you can reach.  Russ

$oo line, what do you mean by going down to 4"?  A 4" rise instead of 6"?  The rise will need to be tall enough so that an engine can pass under the elevated track.  Are you suggesting to raise the rest of the track on that loop 2" so I can get the clearance I need with a 4" rise?  That is definitely a possibility.  Also, I can get to all sides of the layout but control it from one area. 

Russ - valid point.  My grand plan is to have a U shaped table where the outside of the U is elevated and the inside (where the controls will be) is on the "ground".

okay where you start lowering track at right side at the 3.75" make that 4"  then at the 0.30" start increasing the rise back to 6" is what I meant.

now if you use open grid you could lower the bottom track 2" by notching out 2" of the cross bracing and can create a slight gully  and then increase lower rack back to table level again yes it is work but sometimes the payoff is better than saying it won't work. see what I mean about the possibilities if you think out of the box so to speak. you still have the 6" clearance  with upper level at 4" yet trains can easily climb a 2" rise and if you continue that to right side where tracks cross each other you have a scenic effect. at very little cost as the wood is already there!

like i said try it on the floor for a visual see if you like the effect.

$oo

There is another possibility you might consider; keep the "outer loop" completely elevated. Thereby eliminating the steep grades while still keeping the integrity of the original plan. just a thought....

I was thinking about that but I do want the elevation change.  I think that I am going to be adding an inch or two under the lowest parts to decrease the grade.

Decreasing better.  No matter what you decide...just ask yourself:  "How will I reach/access the track that is the most difficult to reach?"  Because that is where the first issue will be.