From New layout 16 X 12.5 to Garage

I wouldnt use a double slip as the crossover switch. Its not going to work well at an sort of speed. You also need another crossover to get back. Right now you only have one way functionality between tracks. Also, if you have to go through the entire layout to get to that door, I wouldnt put the layout in front of it. I think you're better off with the width not including the doorway. I wouldnt want to have to dismantle the whole layout to replace the furnace (or whatever else may be back there).

An around- the -walls layout definitely maximizes your running space, but will block any doors or closets. Since this is a door to a seldomly- opened room or space, you could block it, but you would have to make the modules removable so the furnace could be serviced. Imagine the worst-case scenario where your furnace might need major work and large parts have to be removed through that door- make the removeable modules large enough to allow good access and service through that door. Main access into the room could also be made easier with a section

that lifts out, or is attached on one side with a piano hinge.

 

Geno

 

I actually was thinking about that already today. Planning on switching the yard to the other side. It makes it easier for the removable section to be made. Thanks. I have found my solution. 

Yes that was the idea like this...

Now I can make that corner removable or hinged to be lifted.

Still have to work on this layout since i do think the way the swtiches are set are efficient for trains to swtich tracks. It's a bit too unorgnaized. 

Thanks

All kinds of traffic on the Railroad "Dropgate Bridge"!

I have been looking through the forum and on the website but I am unable to find a corner lift out section. So far I have found lift out sections to be straight. Does it makes sense for me to do a corner section lift out?

 

Thanks

Jim Barrett demonstrates building a piano-hinged drop section with spring-loaded catches in a curve on Backshop DVD #11[from the OGR Shopping Store]. Seems to me one could do a lift out[up] also.

Actually, I may have another idea. Instead of the removable section, I could always just add heavy rollers to each leg and I could simply push the entire layout aside. I do have the room to move it if I need access to that door for furnace.

Hi all

 

After going over my plan I decided I was not happy with my planned layout and decided to try out the RRTrack software. Must say it's better than I thought. Should have bought it to begin with. I still think my layout was boring and unorganized. So I created a new layout which I think is much better than my original. I am still in the beginning phase. Need to figure if it is worth to create a grade to connect the large loop with the inner two smaller ones or leave it separate. 

Yeah, now you're talkin'.  I like this new design much much better than your first plan.  Good job!  Keep us posted on your progress.

 

Rick

How steep is the grade for the incline which allows you to connect the outer and inner loops?

 

I think having them connected will make operating much more interesting.

 

Looks good, keep us posted.

 

Bruce

borderman01,

 

Before building, you might want to check your local building codes. There are probably some regulations pertaining to direct, unimpeded access to the furnace room by a fire fighter.

 

Bill

First off, I think it's a big improvement over the original and I like it a lot more. That said, there are some things you might consider.

If you add a grade to get up to the top loop, and I'm all for that, don't forget you need to get back down and I don't see how at the moment. Your upper loop crosses too many tracks to make it easy to add a grade. The outside track on the right leading to the split seems to be the most logical place to go up, but I don't see where you would come down.

This brings me to the lack of reversing loops. That's not really a criticism, I'm just a big fan of being able to turn trains. I think I'd get bored pretty quickly with a train going round and round on the top loop, but maybe that's just me. I favor plans where trains can get to any track unless there is a specific route set aside for passenger service, etc., though I don't think that's ever the case in real life, other than scenic railroads and trolleys.

My last item is the closed nature of your yards, mostly the upper one. Given there is no way to turn trains, my assumption is that trains coming out of the lower yard will be going counterclockwise and trains from the upper will be going clockwise. In both cases they will have to back into the yards. If they pull in straight, there is no way for the engine to escape.

With the upper yard, this could be solved by reconfiguring the yard into a ladder and connecting it to the upper left corner of the larger loop. If you moved the first switch further down the right side, you might be able to start your grade there. The other leg would still lead to the yard and then separate into the 4 spurs as a ladder rather than splits. An alternative is to simply add a crossover to the end of 2 spurs to provide an exit option for the engine.

Without buying the software and trying things myself, I don't how they'd work, so I'm just throwing out ideas. Use them it not, totally up to you.

IMO buying the RRTrack software was money well spent. It really shows in your latest layout design plus it is fun. Also I think there are a couple of things you might want to consider. First is to connect the yard leads to the main line (type of switching leads). I think this gives more operational fun. Second you might want to consider a reversing loop or possible turntable feature to run in either direction. Again more operational fun. Personally. I like the dead end sidings but on a smaller layouts they take up valuable real estate, but I like to use runarounds if possible. Just food for thought.

Remember my theory is to (connect- connect- connect) and planning is cheap since its only cost is time.

 

Woody

Have a blessed day and may the LORD show you favor.

Thanks all for the comment. This is precisely what I wanted. Feedback and ideas. Woody and DAZ I will definitely try your ideas just need to update my plan. Plank in terms of the furnace I will heavy duty rollers on underneath this layout so I will be able to move the entire layout aside for access. So no probelms there.

Woody would you mind showing me an example of reversing loop. Its easier to see it for me anyways.

 

Thanks

Bill, that's a great point that I always forget to mention. When I divided my basement to build the train room, I made sure the furnace was directly accessible from the bulk head and the stairs without obstruction.

 

Look forward to seeing more updates to the layout plan.

 

Bruce

I also like the most recent design much more.  It looks like there is no connection between the upper level and lower level?

*  I recommend adding easements to your curves, for example starting a O-72 curved section with a half section of O-81 or O-90.

*  How will folks enter the interior?  Is that a duck-under from the lower left corner?

Woody would you mind showing me an example of reversing loop. Its easier to see it for me anyways.

 In this forum go to SEARCH at top and type in reverse loop. 4 or 5 posts down you will see a number of loops for RRTrack. Great info. Also if you have time you should read some of the other post. Hopes this helps.

 

Woody

Have a great day and good luck with your layout.

Thanks woody. I do not believe I can fit a reversing loop on this layout. Its something I will need to think about. One part of the layout will be for passenger train ie subway.. While the other will be for freight trains.

 

On the upper loop I have added a switch to connect the yard of the upper line to the outter smaller loop.

Hey all

Made a mistake with the measurements. Something was not adding up when I was doing a walk around in my basement. I find out that the actual size is 15 X 12. So I had to redo the layout again. But here is what I have. Kind of bummed cause I really wanted the small port with boat. Do not know if I will be able to add it now. 

Purple is the higher elevated track while green is the incline. Grade is about 3.2%.

How will you get from upper level to lower level, or lower to upper, depending on travel direction, without backing up?

 

Doug

I thought about that too. I guess I could somehow add a reverse loop like the lower level.

You might want to draw in the bridge piers that are going to hold up the elevated sections where they cross the other tracks to make sure there's enough clearance for trains to pass beneath. When you have bridges crossing track at anything other than 90º, you lose clearance between the piers and passing trains. Remember, the loading gauge of the train is significantly wider than the track gauge. Just as a primer, the loading gauge is the outer most measurement of the width of the engine or car.

Please excuse me for making a blunt critique.

 

I think your elevated line has too many long bridges skewed across the lower level in ways that will look illogical, and there isn't space for all the supporting piers with long angles across the track underneath.

 

Your table sections are too wide for convenient access. Your long duck-under access to the center area will be inconvenient. An easily moveable bridge for regular access would require a simpler and more compact track arrangement on that part of the table - in other words, a narrower table with fewer straighter tracks on the moveable part.

 

Your subway could be on a lower level with some station and tunnel sections visible at the front edge of the layout, to avoid overcrowding the main level.

 

Reverse loops are desireable for operating variety and might be done with a tighter radius, understanding that some train routing restrictions would apply. But if you have mostly big engines and long cars, then you probably don't want tighter curves even on optional routing.

 

You have a pretty good space to work with. If I was going to build something in that space, I would take more time to consider more options.

Thanks Ace. Appreciate the advice. 

On your old layout that you have videos of on youtube what what the radius of the 3 loops? I just constructed my 5x10 table and I like how you have that 4 track yard with the switch on the outer loop leading into the yard.

On my old current layout it is o36, o45 & o54. 

Im kinda looking to do a similar layout but I am limited to a 5x10 board

After looking over the layout again and taking some good advice here from the forum, decide to change up the layout abit. No second level. Since I would like a balance of subways, engines & freights, I decided to keep the tighter curves towards the inner loops for the subways. The two outer larger loops for the engines. I was even able to add a small port with loading containers and fuel diesel area. Don't know if I should have a lift bridge. Still tweaking layout and beginning to add scenary. I will still cleanup the water area. 

I like the dock/yard, but have a few observations that may or may not matter to you.

A train traveling counter-clockwise on the outer 2 loops will not be able to enter the inner 2 loops without backing in. That same train will have to pull into the upper spurs head first and then have to back out of them.

Conversely, a train traveling clockwise on the outer 2 loops will be able to enter the inner loops, but the double crossover  the inner-most loop it will not be able to get back out wi. thout backing up. It will also be able to back in to the upper spurs, but then would have to enter the yard and dock head first and then have to back out of those.

Since you don't have a reversing loop, the obvious operational solution is to simply have trains traveling counter-clockwise service the dock/yard and have trains traveling clockwise service the upper spurs. However, if you connected the upper most spur to the outer loop to make it a siding, trains traveling in either direction could use it.

A train traveling counter-clockwise on the inner-most loop will be able to get to the outer loops, but then it will have to back up to get back inside. As I said earlier, a train traveling clockwise will have to back out of the inner loop to get to the outer loops. However, converting the single crossover on the inner loops to a double crossover would allow your passenger trains to use both inner loops just as the double crossover on the outer loops lets your freight trains use either loop.

My assumption is that you would mostly run passenger trains on the inner loops and freight trains on the outer loops. The curved wye gives you the capability to intermingle, but that would probably be used mostly to get passenger engines/cars to the yard for maintenance and back. If you run passenger trains in both directions, one will have to back through that wye and then enter the yard head first. Obviously, I tend to think in terms of steam locomotives when I say "head first" and diesels could easier drops its cars, run around to pick them up on the other end and not really be "backing" up.

In addition to converting the uppermost spur into a siding, you might also consider connecting the other 2 spurs together to provide an engine escape route. A train could then pull head first into the double spur, drop its car, then crossover to the other spur to escape or grab another group of cars.

Anyway, just some things to consider.

Hey Daz 

Is this what you had in mind?

 

In a word, yes. Now trains going in either direction have access to all loops and only trains that service the lower yard and dock will have to back up which is more prototypical. You will also able to park trains on the upper sidings for another train to pass without having to back up. As I see it, you can now run 4 trains unattended or mix up the action up by switching tracks, doing some passing, and having at least one freight train service the yard/dock.

Mind you, I'd probably do something totally different with the space because I don't think I'd be happy with running in circles all the time and I know the duck-under would frustrate me after awhile. At 65, crawling on my knees to enter my layout isn't very appealing. My suggestions are meant only to increase the operating options of your design, not redesign it.

FWIW, my eventual layout in a 10x21 space will be a 16x10x13 "C" with offset 4-5' ends, 3' along the walls and a 4-5' bumpout at the middle of the "C". It will have 3 elevations going from a reversing loop urban yard in Phoenix (1) up through a passing siding in Sedona (2) to a small reversing loop yard in Flagstaff (3). And I may add a staging yard beneath Flagstaff, but I really don't intend to "collect" that many engines or rolling stock.

Like you, I will run a small passenger line ala the Old West using a 4-4-0 American with the big over-sized smokestack and my Christmas 4-6-0 steamer set, but it will meander around the walls rather that in a circle. The freight line will haul lumber from Flagstaff to Phoenix.

My initial idea starts with reversing loops, but the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward 2 dogbones rather than reversing loops. My main visual goal is to have trains pass each other going in opposite directions and I want to be able to run 4 trains unattended for display. The biggest obstacle is that I don't want 4 mainlines showing, so I'm going to have to come up with some creative landscaping. I'm going to use 031 curves, but I'm going to try to hide those and use 054 where they will be seen, kind of like what was done in the Black Diamond Railway videos with the elevated subway. Most people think in terms of 031 or 054 and not a combination of both with the right landscaping.

I've already decided too that all equipment I buy will work with 031. I know that limits me to smallish engines, but so be it. If I want to see the big boys in action, I'll drive over to Fairplex in Pomona CA or join the club over in Scottsdale. At any rate, I've got 3 years to come up with a plan and I'm building a 6x11 table now to play with ideas to see how I can make the different parts work.

What about reverse loops? Wouldn't that add to the interest and operation flexibility?

I am a big believer in reverse loops... The thought of having to lift a locomotive off the tracks to face it in another direction, and then doing the same thing with a train load of cars... especially a passenger consist with a baggage car on one end an observation lounge on the other... is not appealing to me at all. In fact, I'm trying to see how many different trains I can have fully made up in storage locations so they run without handling the equipment. If you can fit them, give them a try. It also makes for some interesting switching moves.

Daz,

Since Im still tweaking my idea was to stretch out the right side of the track so to add more straight tracks between the switches. This I would be able to create a piano drop gate of sorts. I could probably get away with a 3 foot table section as a piano hinged access section. Another thing is that since I have a furnace towards the upper left hand side, I can help with weight of table by leaving the middle section clear. This way I can add heavy duty rollers to slide the entier layout over in case of furnace access is needed. Daz do you happen to have a drawing of your future layout? Would like to see it. Sound interesting. Since I will be having large engines O31 curves wouldnt cut it. Would need a minimum of O54.

 

Like I said, my comments are intended to try to add operating interest without completely changing your design and I've indicated what I'd try do with a similar space. Initially I was going to have an 11x11 table with duck-under similar to yours to run just 2 trains. I got the first 6x11 section built and saw that the second 5x11 section was simply not going to happen. I acquiesced to the advice here to shelve the table idea and try around-the-wall. So I then thought about adding 2 liftouts/liftups to provide access to the doorway and a closet. I still haven't given up on that, at least for the closet, but I'm also a fan of reversing loops that are so much easier with DCS and other digital control systems.t
.
Even though it's not for me, I have no problem with your layout for the kind of running you want to do and the size engines you want to run. However, given your latest comment, I would seriously consider redesigning the upper half of the outer-most loop. There you have a loop with 2 extensions comprising a somewhat disjointed yard. I wasn't a fan of the double dual spurs, but I'm also not a fan of the double sidings. The sidings are better because trains can go through, but realistically I'm trying to find a reason for 2 run-arounds.

My thought would be to completely eliminate the inner-most leg leaving just the two double siding legs. This would eliminate one switch in the drop-down area on the right side. It would also allow you to slightly expand the next inner loop to move at least one curve out of the same area and give you a little more space by the double crossover for some additional urban scenery. Alternatively, you could expand all 3 inner loops and add the scenery along the table side of the crossover. You might even be able to use the next wider curve for the inner two loops.

I would then merge the two double spurs and create a more protypical yard off the main. I like your landscaping ideas in the upper right, so I'd leave that, but everything else is too symmetrical for my tastes. If you look at the switch configuration for your lower yard/dock area, you can see how much more interesting it looks. I'd try to capture a similar look for the upper left lead into a yard.

I don't have my laptop with me, so I don't have access to RR-Track to try different configurations, but my goal would be to have the mainline on the outer loop and the other 3 legs would merge into the left side lead. I'd add a switch after the curve into the inner spur and connect the upper siding to that instead of where it currently connects to the upper loop. That would let you store a longer train there. I'd also try taking out the short straight track on the right side of the inner loop. Doing so would put the siding above the lead instead of below. I'm not sure how that would connect up on the left side, but there are a lot of configurations to try. If you play, be careful not to introduce "S"  curves.

I'm sorry, but I do not have a track plan yet. When I get back home later next month, I'm going to upgrade my version of RR-Track so I can start designing in ScaleTrax. However, most of my ideas have come from other designs posted here. Like I said, when I first started I just wanted to run trains and I didn't care if it was just in circles. Then I bought the Black Diamond Railway videos and got hooked on having a theme and a reason for my trains/track to exist. Now I have to work the ideas into the space I will have. The nice thing is I plan to use the time and a temporary table to work out various sections of the layout. The layout will be 3 major areas with open runs of flextrack joining them. I should be able to completely model the track for Phoenix, then for Sedona, and finally for Flagstaff. If I do it right, it should be a simple enough to put each together on the final benchwork and work on landscaping. I may even get to some of the landscaping since most will be on removable platforms.

Daz

Thanks for the comments and ideas. That is why I am here to get more ideas and get different points of view to learn from. I will definitely take your considerations and see if I can improve on my layout.

I almost forgot to mention that the dock and yard on the lower left, that idea came from Toyytrainson track layout. So thanks Rich for the idea and inspiration.

Well here is an updated plan. Still tweaking. I almost forgot I had wanted a train station so as I believe Daz suggested I removed the 4th inner loop to create more space. Still working on the upper yards and different combinations. Added some scenery. Not sure to keep the bridge or not. Was thinking of removing it along with left side water to expand on the container port where I could add a track and cranes. Even fit a small type of building. The port side would be a cement or wood panel type of floor. So the bottom one is without the bridge.