Designing my layout

I would turn the sliding into a second reverse loop, to turn trains the other way, Clockwise.

I also would like to connect the loops, and add more slidings.

 

The 441 weigh scale should not be on a main line. You can put it on the siding behind the 840 Power Station. I would make a reverse loop in the other direction by going around the Airplane.The Airplane really needs about a 6 by 6 area not to have it hit you in the face. Your drawing is scaled to the mat.

Looks good Frank!

The design looks great Frank, throws some variety into the usual loops.

 

My concern is the curve sections coming right off the end of the bridges.  The Hellgate bridge especially, the front pilot of a train coming out of that curve will be overhanging the track to the outside, and the bridge has a narrow entrance. I know straight sections off each end of the bridges takes more space, but I think you'll find it necessary.   

 

I would put the racetrack and airport in the dead areas inside the layout, and have the track use the perimeter of the whole area.  The whole right third of your layout space is too valuable not to use for track.

 

 

Once you are running counter-clockwise, I don't see where you get back to clockwise.

 

neat plan, though.

GVDobler,

You are correct. I only added another route. Hmmmn, the original top loop switches from clockwise to anti counter-clockwise, so we need the anti counter-clockwise to clockwise connection. (been reading to many foreign docs.)

 

Frank,

Deleted dumb add-on. It didn't work.

Around the airport would loop back to clockwise.

What's the area between the race track and the airport? Does it need to be open? You originally said you can go 1-2' bigger in either direction, but that dead square worries me that you can't.

 

ARNO

Thanks for all the suggestions.   I appreciate them greatly and I'm really excited to get this layout going.

I spent a few hours last night making revisions and I'll post the new plan as soon as I can.

The space between the race track and airport is where a support column is.

I wanted to keep the maximum depth of the tables to 5 feet.   I  realize this greatly limits what can be done,  so I've increased that limit in my revision.

Thanks all for your suggestions.

Messing around last night with the software.  

 

I was able to increase the size of the layout.  

 

There's still more revisions to do, but here's what I ended up with last night:

 

My only comment is to leave enough room for scenery.  On my "O" gauge layout the accent was on track work. Changed it twice and still not quite enough scenery in certain areas. On my Std gauge layout I have decided to go the exact opposite. Changed that track plan twice also. Two loops. A figure 8 and a big outer loop. Completely independent. If Ross ever gets their Std gauge 042 switch I may add 4 switches to be able to reverse course in both directions.  I just like sitting back looking at these things run. I like tight turns and tinplate. Adds to the fun of it all. 

When I started planning my SG layout, I had all kinds of switches, crossings and sidings laid out. Lightning struck, and I simplified it to a plan much like the one you originally posted.

 

I second the comments about bridge approaches. I don't have a H***gate bridge, but my Ives and Lionel bridges do require a minimum half straight (7") approach between a curve and the bridge. And even then it is scary close - a 1/4" shift is the difference between a hit or miss. I have run a 400 with these clearances; I run an AF Piper every day. Even some electrics get close. Could you be satisfied with one H***gate?

 

I have an inner loop that does not interconnect with the "fancy" outer loop, same as your original plan. I run some early original Lionel engines with large gear Supermotors and some engines and trolleys with real early slider pickups and wheel-sized gears. These engines short out on switches and crossings, plus they are prone to derailing on a regular basis. Examples include Lionel trolleys, #5 and 6 steamers, and early versions of the 8, 33, 38, 42 etc. I would not connect the loops.

 

I used a 45 degree crossing on my inner loop. I believe that sliders and rollers hold up better on the angled crossing as opposed to the right angle banging they encounter on the 90 degree crossing.

 

Looks like a 104 bridge at the bottom of the inner loop. The approach angle on these is steep. I cheated by placing a 5/16" shim under the low end of the ramps. In support of this I also placed some stabilizing shims under the track sections approaching the bridge. By doing this I also was able to get the clearance I needed without that 7" straight approach mentioned above - mine is installed as you show in your plan.

 

I like to watch 'em run, so reversing was very low on my list. Especially after I did some test running through 0-42 switches with all brands of rolling stock - Ives, Lionel, American Flyer and Dorfan - and both Lionel and AF switches. None were reliable. Backing through a switch was almost a sure derailment. Hopefully you can overcome this.

 

Overall, I do like your original plan. Just my reaction to a few areas which for me could become points of frustration and limitation.

 

 

Hi Frank - It looks like you are going up and over.  Is that possible to do in five track lengths?

I've made some changes.  I expanded the table area.  I've also realized that I really need 6' of space in order to have an 0-42 curve turnaround with a second line running alongside without clearance issues.

 

Not completely satisfied yet as I kind of wanted to keep it simple, but here is what I have so far.  What do you guys think?

 

 

I liked the original layout and then add the r-loop around the airport.

 

Did that one not have enough space for your accessories and buildings?

I like it Frank, it looks like a better use of the space, but still provides the "every which way" that you said was one of your goals.

 

Here's the exercise, and maybe you're already done this: Looking at your plan, start at one point on the track and visualize one of your trains starting to run at that point.  Try to picture yourself standing at the layout, not looking at a flat plan.  You've got the throttle in your hand, and you're running the train around the track.  Follow the track plan, and run all the various possibilities of how the train could run.

 

Does it feel like a satisfying run session?  Or after a couple of times around a loop, does it feel like it could use something different?  Your one reversing loop around the airport works well: easy to throw the switches on the fly and have the train running the opposite way around the outer loop.

 

To reverse the other way is more complex, requiring several switches through the center section.  That could be fun too; unless you have other trains parked on or running on the center loop.  Can you picture this being a problem? The way you have the plan now, it would be easy in the future to add a few more switches around the airport and be able to reverse both ways there, if you decided in the future to do that. Then, if you set the wiring up right, you would be able to run two trains: one on the outer loop, and another going the opposite way on the inner loop, and still have the ability to reverse directions on each loop without interfering with the other train.

 

What are your priorities for running trains?  Some operators just like to get a train running on a loop and watch it.  Others want more to do, like throwing switches, stopping at industries and stations, taking alternate routes, backing into sidings to add or drop cars (even in standard gauge!).  The method of operating that gives you the most satisfaction will determine the best way to shape the layout.

 

 

Okay,  Here's a few more revisions.  I'd love to make it more simple and remove a few switches (as these appear to be unreliable), but I need them in order to be able to reverse the trains and connect the inner loop with the outer loop.

 

 

The inner loop reverses fine. The outer doesn't have a loop to reverse from clock wise movement or get to the inner.

 

escaping from the inner at the airport strands the train on the outer in a clock wise movement.

 

Doesn't RR-Track have simulator mode? I just received v.5 and haven't messed with it yet.

 

Edit..idea didn't work

Frank,

 

I took what you had and reworked it a bit. First, I got rid of all the troublesome switches and replaced them with Ross 72" switches (shown as MTH 72 switch). These switches are far better and will most likely never give you a problem.... really. I did not connect the 2 loops, but I could if need be. Now you can run either direction on either loop. Also have a place to store an extra train or two. One other note, you can operate the outer loop on all 72" curves by taking the inside route past the raceway.

 

Also, the MTH 72 switches have the switch tower on the inside of the switch. These can get in the way of some larger equipment. The Ross switch has a low switch machine that can be mounted on either side, which isn't much of a problem as they won't get in the way.

 

ARNO

 

 

I like where you are heading...

 

However, sometimes I think less is more.

 

I'd suggest losing the line going through the crossing and over around the power house. All those S-curves could prove problematic, especially that triple hook around the power house. If possible, try to provide at least one car length of straight track between reverse curves for smoother operation.That stretch of track does not provide for another operating loop since it shares track with the inner loop. That area with the three tracks curving near each other and not being uniformly aligned in increasing radii just doesn't look smooth...  ???

 

Also, spur tracks are really only useful if they can hold an entire train for storage. Switching operations such as dropping cars off on a spur really doesn't work that well with STDG.(As a reminder, tracks branching off and leading to an end/bumper are spurs not sidings.)

 

I will support Arno's recommendation of the Ross STDG turnout. No other STDG turnout compares. Please, don't waste your time and money trying to run a layout with MTH turnouts.

 

In fact, with some simple non-derailing wiring of the Ross turnouts, you could turn the outer loop into a end to end dogbone with a reverse loop on either end. ???

 

FYI: If you plan on running early STDG locos with big wheel gears you will have to modify the 90*/45*crossover to work (increase check rail clearance).

 

I realize you are trying to add action and get trains running "every which way", but I liked the simplicity of the first track plan better.

 

Good luck.

Frank,

   Looks great with or without the siding, great job.  I love standard Gauge layouts, wish I had the room for one similar to yours.

PCRR/Dave

I think I would lose the four switches making a circle.  I can't see what the circle adds besides being able to turn the train around on the outside loop.  I would just keep it going around the two sides like around your oval.

Uh, just checked out the prices for the Ross switches.  $159.95 apiece.  Yikes!

 

Can't recall if they offer specials at York.

Which switch is that?

They do not have York specials. From what Steve the owner has told me, they really don't make much money on them.

Remember, you can pay over half that for a brand new MTH switch that doesn't work that well. Or to be fair to MTH, the equipment doesn't like it. It is a 75 year old design.

Once you use the Ross switches you will see the benefits. There have been threads about them

ARNO

SG125M RH 072 switch with LGB motor and closed frog design 159.95

SG126M LH 072 switch with LGB motor and closed frog design 159.95

Cut your losses . Simplicity is the path to serenity.  Lose the four switches in the circle.  I don't want to see trains running around in a circle.  You just saved yourself seven hundred bucks, and many potential headaches.

 

That's exactly what it adds: reversing loops for each direction.  There's only so many times you can watch the same train go around the same loop around the same curves in the same direction before your eyes glaze over.  Long term enjoyment of a layout comes from a certain amount of (granted, limited) variability.

 

The circle around the airport acts as reversing loops both ways: it is not intended to run trains around the airport circle!  Although, it might work very well as a trolley or hand car circle, come to think of it, with bigger trains running simultaneously on other parts of the layout.

 

Arno's design makes excellent use of the available space and includes most of the elements, like reversing loops, that a great layout should have.  But it also works well if it is built in phases.  If you use that design, you could, as William1 suggests, leave off some of the switches for now… and add them gradually.  Treating yourself to one or two additional switches each year works well: then you can see whether you need to add the variety of routes, or whether you're happy with one direction running. If you use a plan like Arno's from the beginning, you won't have to tear up and rebuild sections of the layout each time, it will already be spaced for the switches. 

 

Yes, the Ross standard gauge switches are expensive.  Also, they operate on DC so you will need a DC power supply.  And, they are worth it.  It's really pretty amazing: after getting used to trains bumping and rattling and losing power over the traditional-design switches, not to mention at least occassional derailments, you will be stunned by how much better the Ross switches perform.  If you close your eyes you cannot tell when the train crosses the switch, they are that smooth.  I have 56 switches on my layout and I'm in the process of replacing (almost) all of them with Ross; a multi-year plan, but each one I do, the improvement is wonderful.

 

 

Hojack brings up a good point, you don't have to do all the switches at once. When I did my version of the layout I wanted to take what Frank had done and show you can do the same thing with the 72" switches. One thing I discovered with my last layout which was restricted to 42" curves, instead of limiting yourself to the usual 2-track section 42" 90 degree turns, you can do a 72'-42"-72" curve and come using about the same real estate. You can run larger equipment with the easement curves and they run better than just hammering into a turn. This way you can utilize the 72" Ross switch. Yes, there are lots of switches, but I only added a few more than Franks design, mainly to add the spur around the race track. If it were me, I would do basically the same layout with 3 separate loops and loosing a bunch of switches. If I have time I will throw that idea together.

 

I'm in the process of designing my new SG layout which will be about 11'x26'. So, I will need a bunch of Ross switches! I have made it a point to pick up a few each York to build up a stock pile. Although, last York when I finally made it to the Ross booth I was only able to get 2 switches.... that's because Hojack just bought 6 of them!But that's OK, he has a layout, I don't.

 

Frank, your efforts are good. You need to start building and stop planning! (me too)

 

ARNO

Arno,   I like your revisions a lot!   And you're right,  I need to get building!   I have too many items sitting unused in boxes that i can't wait to open.

Hojack also has the great idea about getting a few switches at a time.   I counted 13 switches and that's over $2000, a bit much to buy in one shot.   Hope you guys leave me some at York this coming spring!

Thanks for all your ideas guys.   I'm always open to others opinions.

The Ross switch took a $30 price jump from last year. The biggest draw back is that they have a DC motor and not easy to make non-derailing. The #4 is $179.95.

 

13 switches is way too many. 6 switches are used around the Airport. Why not none. A separate 72 loop and the mainline passing by.

 

What is the goal? One train meandering all over one big route. Multiple trains taking separate routes.

 

The process here is good. The layout is evolving well. Shoot for the moon and then give and take things away.

Here is my layout at one point. When I originally drew it I had more switches the figure formed double reversers and attached to the 72 loop. I could run one train around all 3 loops in both directions using non-derailing switches.

 

I removed many switches from this drawing because of the super 381. Decided to

go back to this drawing except putting Ross switches on the 72 loop. This lets me run my 381 and Brute on the 72 loop. With the 280 bridge removed.

 

For route running I park the 72 loop train in front of the Hellgate bridge. Turn the 72 Ross switches to straight. The 72 switches on the 84 loop are wired together with a DPDT toggle switch. center off the switches operate independently. Switching the toggle wires the switches together making the derailer throw closed to open and open to closed. The other side of the toggle makes open to open closed to closed.

 

A train running counterclockwise on the 84 loop crosses the switch in front of the Hellgate bridge throwing the other 72 switch to open. The train now goes around the 72 loop and throws the 84 switch open (non-derailing feature) which throws the other 84 switch to closed causing the train to go around the 84 loop. The whole thing repeats over and over. Throw in the train on the figure 8 going around and around there is plenty of action.

 

I have a Youtube video. My Standard gauge layout showing 3 trains running.

 

 

Jim,  I don't see a way on your layout of reversing a train.  This is one of my 'druthers'.  

 

I'd love to see your layout on youtube.  Is it possible for you to post a link?

 

I'd love to keep it simple but it's hard if I want to be able to reverse the trains.  I'm seeing a way to build in stages.  Possibly the inner loop first without the siding, which would mean 4 switches.  Add the siding later.  Add the outer loop without either the line on the inner side of the race car set, or the outer.

 

I was looking at simplifying the loop around the airport, but I haven't figured a way yet to eliminate a switch or two, and still be able to reverse a train.

 

 

Unless you connect the outside loop to the inside with two crossovers.  But that is four switches also.  It just looks too busy around the circle.

Frank, another thing about switches. You will have derailments at switches, far less with Ross, many with traditional. You need to think about being able to reach them in order to re-rail rolling stock. I see some switches 5', 6' and even 7' from the nearest access, assuming your drawing is on a 1' grid. I don't count that 1' wide slot at the lower right as access.

 

You should consider the need for access holes.

 

 

It ended being 6 switches which is why I left it out. The 4 switches to make a circle around the figure 8 and to more to connect to the 72. I could run 1 train around all 3 loops reverse direction and do it the other way over and over.

 

My Standard gauge layout

Here is a 18 by 12 layout. Stan Gauge click on his name for parts 1 2 and 4.

Owen,

I would have to disagree about the derailments with the Ross switches. As we know, the one thing that causes many derailments on switches are the gaps in the rail, especially around the frog area. With the moving frog that Ross incorporates, the rolling wheels never encounter a break in the rails. That is one reason, at least to me, why they are so worth the extra money. When I had my old layout running with a pair of Ross switches, I never had a derailment, no matter what I ran thru them.

 

ARNO

 

Arno, I accept your evaluation of the Ross switches. They have obviously been designed to eliminate the gaps which lead to most derailments, a fact proven by your experience with them.