I was going to write that all the track colors are dark and I had a hard time telling one from another. I have been using Duck Duck Go browser, so finally opened it in Chrome. Now I see the colors better. All I can say is that the plan looks quite ambitious, but certainly doable. I'm glad Ken is really on top of things giving ideas.
@Ken Wing posted:Yard at upper right looks good, but you'll need room without track for roads and on the ground container storage.
I'm wondering how wide the aisle is at the corner of the blue walls. Will you be able to get into that lower left space?
Good news is the wall are not there yet....have not built the building....so i have some flexibility....but they did move on me....my one complaint it seems objects move on me when I don't want them to.
yes i agree i think I need a larger space for the container yard to get roads building etc.
As I study this more I don't like how the blue and green main lines are going up and down...your going up or down on a good portion of the run.
A figure 8 requires either grades or a grade crossing. To avoid both, you would need to flip the loop around the passenger yard so the mainline becomes just a double-track loop.
Personally, I think modest grades add visual and operating interest--more three dimensional scenery versus a tabletop look, and make an engineer operate the locomotive instead of just putting the controls on autopilot.
If grades are too steep, they don't look realistic and limit train length. Spreading the grade over the whole main line minimizes the steepness. When building, you must avoid vertical kinks at the top and bottom of the grade. The top and bottom of grades are poor places for track switches. Spur tracks coming off grades can be challenging because the spur needs to be close to level so the cars don't roll.
The figure 8 requires a grade separation of about six inches. Going to the double-track loop would let you have gentler grades.
@Ken Wing posted:A figure 8 requires either grades or a grade crossing. To avoid both, you would need to flip the loop around the passenger yard so the mainline becomes just a double-track loop.
Agree, I am looking at both options....I think you lose some of the visual appeal if you just flip the loop which I am not sure I want to do either
Personally, I think modest grades add visual and operating interest--more three dimensional scenery versus a tabletop look, and make an engineer operate the locomotive instead of just putting the controls on autopilot.
No doubt I want grades - but I am in a situation where I got to get up and stay up til I am coming down..I think i am at about 2% grades or less but certainly there is no pause you are going up or you are going down.
If grades are too steep, they don't look realistic and limit train length. Spreading the grade over the whole main line minimizes the steepness. When building, you must avoid vertical kinks at the top and bottom of the grade. The top and bottom of grades are poor places for track switches. Spur tracks coming off grades can be challenging because the spur needs to be close to level so the cars don't roll.
Not sure what the current grade i have on my layout...i built it do long ago. Gong to figure that out and test to see just what I can pull up that grade....again thinking about the lionel 21" passenger cars....I think my current grade is close to 2+%
The figure 8 requires a grade separation of about six inches. Going to the double-track loop would let you have gentler grades.
Right now on my current layout I have basically a hidden grade....once you get up, you can run the train on the upper level up and then when you are down you are running on the lower level The grade is more of a connection between the 2 levels not really part of the layout.
In this particular drawing once you come around the passenger yard and descend to back under the main - go though the double crossover you start ascending up again.....that is my real issue.....is just seems a short time on the lower level before you start ascending up again.
Maybe that is no big deal...maybe I am overthinking it.
One idea would be to move the mainline crossing up toward the upper left corner. This would make the two parts of the figure 8 more equal in length, giving you more distance on the lower level.
So, I still have to clear the "right turn" the blue and green lines make and the passenger yard before I can go descend....However, your earlier point was a good one about using a good portion of the main to increase.....getting up to 6 inches where the "duck under" is - is an artificial obstacle...what if I get to 3 inches cross the aisle and start a gradual ascent again.....i can have the freight yard 3 inches below the main level - so where the gold line comes under it will be a 6" and will have it will then be able in rise another 3 inches to the main level.....not sure if that make sense.
Maybe its time to rethink the track plan and try a different configuration. Since this will be a new structure, why the corner closet constraints? My dream would be to have a walk in layout. No duck unders, no lift off, no lift ups, no swing gates. How about an "E" shape design , lobes on the ends would provide long runs and allow multiple scenery changes. Plus a water level route and upper tracks. Just a thought.
Or maybe even a "G" seems to me you could get another lobe or at least a stub yard in there. Perhaps an intermodal yard with dock?
Okay, got a revision I like - let me know what you think.
What I like.....
1. no duck under - the blue main line now encompasses the entire room and has built in reverse loop. I thought to avoid double track on the right side make a reverse loop. But what do you think about double track on then right side and maybe a passing siding. My goal was at least one long main line I could run long passenger train and have minimal switches... this adds 2 switches but the non-derail feature will keep them running without worrying about the direction of the switch.
2. I now have enough length to have 2% or better grades - feel more comfortable about that.
3. Found a good spot for the container yard...and kept a secondary yard in the bottom left.
4. Gold - freight line - leave main classification yard on the right access to cars in secondary yard or industrial sidings.
5. Blue goes to all three areas.....green just to bottom 2 on left and gold middle and right side
6. Green line needs 2 go to red to reverse or gold depending on direction. All lines can now reverse.
7 Had to shorten the passenger yard to make the sharper turn at the "bend" will have to work on that to get the length I am looking for there.
8. Still having trouble with elevation on the software so ignore what the tracks cross looks like. I put in light color what is in the tunnel at the "bend" so you won't be seeing all those track turning the corner...only the passenger yard....
Okay give it to me ....what needs to be fixed?
Attachments
In my opinion, the single-track part of the blue line to the reversing loop at lower right significantly reduces the number of trains you could run on the blue line without adding meaningful operational interest.
I encourage you to think through how you will follow along with your train. Both the blue and green lines cross themselves, leaving you on the wrong side of the lobe a good deal of the time. Unless all the track follows the edge, there will be times when you have to walk around a lobe to get to your train, but you could cut this way down by flipping the blue loop in the lower lobe, and flipping one of the two green loops to eliminate the crossing.
A "main" classification yard takes a lot of room. At least lead, ladder(s), width, and length need to be considered soon. You might have more width to work with at the top of the layout than on the right side. Perhaps the lead could be on the right side. The aisle at right already looks a bit tight (I have no idea what the real dimensions are here). Too many yard body tracks here and you'd have to shorten the lobes at left to maintain the aisle.
You mention you haven't built the walls yet. Wondering about the building itself? This is basically a square space. It's usually easier to design for a rectangular one. Has the building been built? If not, is there dimensional flexibility?
@Ken Wing posted:In my opinion, the single-track part of the blue line to the reversing loop at lower right significantly reduces the number of trains you could run on the blue line without adding meaningful operational interest. Agree - wasn't sure i liked that anyway
I encourage you to think through how you will follow along with your train. Both the blue and green lines cross themselves, leaving you on the wrong side of the lobe a good deal of the time. Unless all the track follows the edge, there will be times when you have to walk around a lobe to get to your train, but you could cut this way down by flipping the blue loop in the lower lobe, and flipping one of the two green loops to eliminate the crossing. Hmmm, that doesn't bother me as much i kinda like the figure 8 effect....I have to get down to the lower level for the double crossover...
A "main" classification yard takes a lot of room. At least lead, ladder(s), width, and length need to be considered soon. You might have more width to work with at the top of the layout than on the right side. Perhaps the lead could be on the right side. The aisle at right already looks a bit tight (I have no idea what the real dimensions are here). Too many yard body tracks here and you'd have to shorten the lobes at left to maintain the aisle. agree, after looking at it again, that is a no brainer to put in the back or the "top" of the layout...I just always had in mind mind from the start it would be on that right side....and if you do that...then do you move the passengers yard to the right side at the blue level?.....you are coming in at above the gold level just make the lobe in bottom right all at the blue level. If you had the passenger yard there you could make the middle lobe a little smaller thus giving some more aisleway as it is tight like you say about 2 feet. Now then bottom lobe could be made a little smaller as you are not cramming in the passenger yard.
You mention you haven't built the walls yet. Wondering about the building itself? This is basically a square space. It's usually easier to design for a rectangular one. Has the building been built? If not, is there dimensional flexibility?
Building has not been built...30 feet wide is a final. i have a little flexibility on the other side as I have not finished drawings for the other half of the building which will be a 1 BR apartment. It is close though...I have a little more length available on the right side than the left. Again that is subject to final drawing of the other half of the building.
Okay, the latest and greatest...I know you have been on the edge of your seat. (joke)
What the latest revision gives me.
1. Long blue main line to run primarily passenger trains and long container trains or other. built in reverse loop with double crossover. - minimum switches so just let em run.
2, No duck under or nod under
3. nice space for freight classification yard - gold in the back/back right of the layout to be developed
4. secondary main line green - minimum switches run whatever
5. gold line primarily freight line - loop to loop. Another idea is to take out the loops and put in turn around Y's at each end. lots of industry to switch
6. fixed the aisle issues
7 container yard - not sure that is best place TBD
8 kept the stub in the left corner -
9. I think I fixed my passenger yard (red) more work to do there would love to hear more opinions - that lobe will not be the big downtown city with passenger thru tracks on both sides of the lobe - I think....stub end siding can run underneath city buildings. I think there is a lot of flexibility to make this a nice yard. I also think you might be able to have a passenger station on each side that are separated enough with tall buildings for appearance of o little distance
Feeling good about where it is.....but look forward to comments Need to do some work on the crossovers as well.
Attachments
How much space do you have between parallel curved track. Hard to understand looking at the pdf. Labels at key points would also be helpful.
I like that both the green and yellow lines make it possible to follow the train without running around a lobe. Yellow line much more interesting than in earlier versions. Blue line is much improved as double track the whole way. Personally, I would still flip blue loops in both left-side lobes to reduce running around lobes to follow train, but I hear that you are not concerned about that. I think there is potential for a wonderful stub-end passenger terminal on the right side as the top level. Remember Grand Central in NYC was stub end with loop underneath? You could do something similar here, and still have room for a B&O-type 26th Street yard on the lowest level of yellow--with a car float!!
@ScoutingDad posted:How much space do you have between parallel curved track. Hard to understand looking at the pdf. Labels at key points would also be helpful.
Not sure about the spacing....just trying to get it on the "paper" work out the details later. Here is some labels - does that help?
Attachments
@Ken Wing posted:I like that both the green and yellow lines make it possible to follow the train without running around a lobe. Yellow line much more interesting than in earlier versions. Blue line is much improved as double track the whole way. Personally, I would still flip blue loops in both left-side lobes to reduce running around lobes to follow train, but I hear that you are not concerned about that. I think there is potential for a wonderful stub-end passenger terminal on the right side as the top level. Remember Grand Central in NYC was stub end with loop underneath? You could do something similar here, and still have room for a B&O-type 26th Street yard on the lowest level of yellow--with a car float!!
Yes I really like the blue and yellow lines now.....green just add a line
If I flip the loops it makes the up and down tighter and I still would have to crossover the yellow line as it is on the outside.
I think there is a great opportunity for passenger yard terminal...that is where I really need to some time and reading and get help here....same with the freight yard....want make the most efficient use of the space.
And like I said while the two passenger stations will be connected I think i can disguise that and give the feel of small town station and big city terminal
Were not done but - thanks to specifically
@Ken Wing @ scoutingdad
both of your help and suggestions are much appreciated.
@msp posted:Not sure about the spacing....just trying to get it on the "paper" work out the details later. Here are some labels - does that help?
I get it that you are just trying to get it on paper. The labels did help. I am worried that when you get down to details, some track arrangements won’t work out. ScoutingDad Jeff knows that happened for me, I believe. I’m not trying to criticize at all. I’m having trouble seeing how all the tracks will fit. I realize it would be more clear if I saw the actual drawing on the computer, but we have to work with what we have.
So, latest revision, I took out the green line....it was just in the way and going nowhere. Amazing how this thing has evolved. Very little like the original....I have added some notes that i hope will help and not clutter. I know it is hard to differentiate colors.
As far as exact curves etc. I think i am real close to everything fitting ....if I have to tweak the radius a bit I have some flexibility to do that.
I can pull in long passenger trains into the city station or going other way into the small town station - I can have 2 or 3 trains queued up to go either way the blue elevated line between will help separate as if they are 2 separate places but actually share track
I think I am real close now....what do you think?