Loop(s), Operation, Scenery

I lack experience too, but I would seriously consider a lift-out, lift-up or swing-out at the bottom, a duck-under gets old real fast. Once you go through the single reversing loop, the only way to reverse again is to back through. The easy solution is to connect the spur on the left to the loop just before the spur splits there at the end. When it comes to yards, I'm really a novice, but I don't like dead ends. If it were me, I'd connect the yard back to the main in the lower left. I think you can get longer spurs by adding a straight section in the curve at the upper left to move the rest of the curve through the opening sooner. I would also move the engine track to the last spur. I can't comment on the track in the upper right, I'm not sure what your plan is for those2 spurs.

Thanks, Dave.  Good points about dead-end yards and adding a second turn-around; I'll tinker with this one a bit more.  The upper right spurs are for a dual stall engine shed; the upper left spur is intended for my switcher.

Adam

Kind of figure that, but didn't want to make an assumption. I tried making all 3 yard tracks through-tracks, but that took away too much storage space.

Another iteration from yesterday.  I like the yard configuration in this one but after sleeping on it I'm not that happy with the spur-turned-reversing-loop, especially when compared to the prior version which had that nice wandering, branching spur on the left. The spurs are much less interesting.

I was simply suggesting adding a connection somewhere along where I added the black line in the middle to get a 2nd reversing loop without substantially changing your overall design. Since you already included the 1 loop, I was merely pointing out the cons of having a single loop. Had you not had the 1 loop, I wouldn't have suggested the 2nd. IMHO, if you have 1 reversing loop, you need the 2nd one or you don't need either one.

I'm torn between using reversing loops or just having the mains close enough in various points to have trains pass each other going in different directions, much like your 1st design would be without the 1 loop. The main reason I like reversing loops is because it gives the impression of going somewhere and coming back instead of just going around in circles.

Unless I'm mistaken, "real" trains tend to go somewhere and eventually come back. A train route may go from LA to Chicago and obviously the same "train" doesn't return, but I don't believe the engine continues on to NYC and then down to Tallahassee on its way back to LA. Like most airplanes, most engines service a given out and back route. When I look at around-the-room designs, I see a train circling the US rather than following a typical railroad route. Even Amtrak, who does serve the whole US, typically has out and back routes to serve specific parts of the US.

My layout ostensibly will go from Wickenburg to Williams to Flagstaff and back. AFAIK, there is no direct route from Flagstaff to Wickenburg, so any design that includes an oval directly back to Wickenburg without going back through Williams just doesn't work for me. While your 1st design does include the connection between the 2 loops, and mine will too, the main operation will be loop-to-loop, going from location A to location B and back. The connection is just there to provide some added interest and options.

Loops are also effective on multi-level layouts where there might not be enough space on all levels for a stretched oval or dogbone along a wall, etc. My 2nd or 3rd level will be a simple loop-to-loop with a connection along the back wall. It will also have a grade to connect it to the lower level. If I use a stretched oval, I have to then make that level 3 tracks wide instead of just too and that will cover too much in my space.

I also think it would make sense to include a connection somewhere between the 2 tracks where I added the 2nd black line on the top. That way you could take a train off the main and back it into the yard without affecting other trains on the main. I originally suggested turning the yard into a pass-through for the same reason, but I've been re-evaluating that suggestion, even for my own layout design where I've been trying to close the yard with a reversing loop. My yard is going to be strictly for storage, so taking a train off the main and backing it into its storage slot makes more sense for me.

Anyway, I think you've given up too much in your 2nd design. I do like the yard design better, but I'm not into switching yards, so I don't know if it's large enough for how you intend to use it. I've given up on an operation yard because I just don't have the room for a decent one, so I'd deal with a storage yard and manually move cars around.

Just my $.02 worth. It's your layout and you only have to please yourself. BTW, what software are you using?

I see what you mean about the two reverse loops now.  I had been thinking of them as a tool for turning the train around, rather than turning the layout into more of a point-to-point setup.  But I would like to work toward a layout that is point-to-point in nature.

Here's my latest revision.  It was inspired by Tim's design in this thread, which interestingly is the same size room as mine but I am using O-54 minimum curves so I wasn't able to get quite the same cool winding pathway effect, but you can still walk into it.

I really like how the mainline is much longer.  There's room for two carefully spaced trains.  I've split my yard up between the inside of the right loop area and the lengthy spur at left (for my passenger cars).  There isn't much of a yard lead here, although it's conceivable that the long left spur could be a downward grade and U-turn into a staging yard underneath the left side of the layout.

Indeed, industries in the spurs, and there is room for a passenger station in between those rectangles (which represent columns).  Great point about the inside upper left spur being too short – removed for now but I do like your idea of making the mainline follow that path.  Much better to spend that switch money on making the left hand passenger spur reconnect at the bottom.

I don't have that much rolling stock right now, but I'm certain it will only grow.  I'd add another track to the yard but I want to leave room for industry and scenery – imagining a mountain along the right side wall, that straightaway possibly being in a tunnel. I'm thinking of the engine shed as "home" for all of the locomotives on the layout, perhaps largely because there isn't much other choice.

Really appreciate your input Dave.  I'd share the layout file but the software I'm using is something I wrote (for Mac; unreleased at this point) so unfortunately it wouldn't be of much use.  The color version I shared before was the plain track plan modified using a vector art application (OmniGraffle).

Adam

When it comes to the spur being too short, I actually meant the siding itself was too short to service the spur without interrupting the mainline. However, I think if you play a bit there, you'll find it more pleasing to smooth out the flow for at least 1 of the mains and then maybe add a spur back in between them. The spur would be serviced directly off the main.

I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with a spur there. Usually when you add a siding like that though, you make it long enough for the train to service the spur without having to stop traffic on the main. That means the lead would have to be long enough to hold at least the engine and 1 car and the rest of the siding would have to be long enough to hold the rest of the train. Since it didn't look like it was, then the siding becomes redundant and a waste of money for a switch and the extra track.

When it comes to the yard, you can always keep it at 2 tracks with the idea of adding another in the future if you need to, it was just a thought. A 2-track yard doesn't hold much and doesn't allow much in the way of putting together a consist. Given that you included the crossover, it looks like you want to use a switcher there to move cars around and a 3rd track would give you more options to do so. You'd build the consist on the 3rd track and then pull the engine out of the engine facility to take the consist on its merry way.

I don't intend to do any switching. My trains will pretty much stay stable and back into their assigned slots in my 6-track storage yard. If I want to change things up, I'll do it manually. Truth be told, the trains will probably just stay where they are on the track when I shut things down. My yard will be an add-on through the wall at a later date if and when I decide I really need a yard. Like you, I may even make it a hidden yard below the layout and not mess with the 2nd bedroom at all.

Recently, one of the threads here showed a yard on a sliding table. When you want to take a train out or put one back, you just slide the table to line up the appropriate track with the lead. That saves a lot of money that would otherwise be spent on switches and lets you slide the yard out to manually change cars around. One thing I've learned is that model railroaders are very inventive when it comes to ways to save money and space.

Quite impressed that you've written your own software. From what I've read, there isn't much out there for the Mac. If you ever release it commercially, I hope it's a success.

I'm quite surprised more people aren't adding comments. I would have thought this kind of layout would have caught the attention of folks with a lot more experience than I have.

If your room door is where I'm guessing it is, I would suggest installing a Jim Barrett "drop section" or lift bridge[see Backshop DVD #11]. One example shown below. I'm with Dave--that duckunder will get old fast.

He did add a lift-out/gate in his 2nd around-the-room design, but then took that whole section out of the latest walk-in design. I forgot to suggest he consider putting it back in just for the added variety. It seems like a simple thing to do, especially a lift-out bridge. Thanks for reminding me.

Thanks for the replies – definitely agree on either doing a lift-out or bridge of some sort.

After thinking about the layout quite a bit over the past few weeks, as well as seeing Norm's video from his thread, I decided that what I really wanted was to be able to run trains – operating would be nice but I don't have any real experience with it so I don't think I'm ready to design a layout that makes that a priority.  The double mainline from Norm's layout/video really spoke to me, so I've redone the layout with that in mind, as well as moving it to a different room.

The entrance to this room is in the lower left; there's a closet area entrance at the top center, where I would likely employ a lift-out section for that triple track section.  There's room for another spur or two but I'm focused on the big picture (mainline) for now.

I've setup the track for the outer mainline on the floor and am really liking it.  The only part I'm not certain about are the crossovers, presently at the left and right.  As configured now they can be used as a lengthy passing siding.  The left one presents a (solvable) access problem.  The right one would likely be concealed by a mountain (and so there could be access within the mountain).

Adam

Just a thought about access to the left/right crossovers, you might consider flipping them and locating them on the ends of the curves. This actually does away with the reverse ("S") curve situation and should make for smoother running.