Rough Layout Plan - thoughts, advice, criticisms please!

PJB, 

Great list of ideas. Could you post a bitmap picture of this rrt track file, I don't haveaccess to rrt software at the moment.

George

OK, don't know how to put into bitmap, but used "snag-it" to at least post the image.  If someone can walk me through how to convert the MTH Railking image into a more usable format, I would appreciate it.

I know this is a very rough layout compared to some of the brilliant stuff others have created/posted, so please don't judge it on this basis.  Basically, just looking for urban-to-suburban-to-rural settings, industry and then through the mountains landscape and bridges (which all kids love).  Trying to make the most of my space limitations for long main (double) lines, staging tracks, a classification yard and, if space permits, a roundhouse and turntable.  Would welcome ALL comments, as I am hoping for advice, criticisms, input before starting construction. 

Thanks VERY much to everyone commenting - I totally appreciate it.

Here goes:

It is difficult to determine if you will have access to the track from the walled in sides.  If not, construction, detailing and righting the occasional wrong will be challenging.  Turntables are space grabbers if you want them to look correct in place.  You may want to consider making some paper mockups of the track, then placing this on the floor in the room.  It give you an idea of how this will look as it migrates from the minds eye to the real world.

PJB your photos worked. As necrails noted it is a far reach 8'. Do you plan on access hatches to get to those hard to reach areas?  And or can you move around the perimeter of you layout by shrinking it abit. I put track that I had right on the floor or papermock up to determine your available space. Atlas O makes a smaller 24" Turntable.

An Atlas turntable with a roundhouse eats up 3'x5 area, you could go without a roundhouse and or use engine shed. 

I just noticed your atlas turntable in the photo. I do not have rr track with me and I'm not rr tack master by any means. You could try an around the walls option and use different levels and or whole independent loops from each, it is easier for me to see something rather than describe it. Have yard or engine service area off the donut. 

Or try to make rr track plan as a doggone but it's a tight fit.

As others have said, you have quite a reach to the rear of the layout without access hatches (we hide ours under building platforms.) Since you're looking at Atlas-O O-72/O-81 curves, you might want to consider using #5 turnouts for your crossovers. This will keep the mainline spacing consistent and eliminate the "reverse curve" scenario.

If you decide to go with Gargraves track and Ross turnouts, the 11-degree "regular" turnout works instead of using O-72's for crossovers. By the way, another combination that works well (but requires a bit of work) is to use Atlas track with Ross turnouts. All you have to do is cut out the stringers on the end ties of the Ross turnouts, slide the end ties back, and use regular Atlas joiners (don't use the Atlas adapter pins) to connect the track. We do this at the club and it works well.

Hope this helps.

I'm thinking the pop-ups would be (a) one in the EL (green line) loop area and (b) somewhere near where I have the turntable right now.   We want double mains, as the boys like to see the trains go in opposite directions.  Our theme is New York City (like lower Manhattan or the 'burbs" - no skyscrapers) and then upstate NY. 

Thanks for the turnout advice!

AGHRMatt (and anyone else) - I had asked in another thread for opinions on Atlas track paired with Atlas or RCS switches and GG or Ross paired with RCS switches.  always looking for those with real-life epxerience to weigh in on this subject as to preferences and why. 

Thanks so much for the help and please, keep it coming - even if it's to tell me i need to do XYZ totally different.  Thank you.

Peter 

Forgot to mention - as you can see, I tried putting in one siding along the top (the track off the turnout that stops abruptly.  Any suggestions on where to add other sidings would be appreciated.  As would advice on where to put run-around tracks for more prototypical operation. Similarly, suggestions on how to make the yard viable would be appreciated (using RailWare, it's hard to tell if I even have sufficient space for a yard/yard ladder, etc.).  Finally, would appreciate opinions on the reverse loops - are they needed?  nice to have?  overkill?  Etc.  

Thanks!

As turnouts go, I believe (and others share this opinion) that the Ross turnouts are about the best three-rail turnouts out there. They're also offered in way more configurations than anyone else offers. Hence my recommendation that Ross turnouts be used with Atlas or Gargraves track.

BTW, I have a philosophy about reverse loops -- two or none. With truck-mounted three-rail couplers, backing a long train through a reverse loop can create derailment problems on long trains. There's even a risk with body-mounted couplers if you get a light car i the wrong place in the train.

Another thing that seems to work for me is to start with a basic design, get it onto RR-Track, then actually start removing track from the design. It seems counter-intuitive, but it allows for better placement of industrial spurs, sidings, and scenery. By the way, there were (and still are) some areas on the club layout that had too much track and we actually took it out; plus the mountain branch was built as a single track run to a reverse loop/secondary staging yard.

Hope this helps.

OK, I attempted to do some makeshift clean-ups (and for ease of viewing, ditched the EL line).  This is the limits of what I could do with the Railking Railware Software, as it doesn't have a 4-way switch or a double slip switch, etc.

It's still a double main (072 and 081).  They incline on the left leg up to the back, turn right and go across the back across a bridge and through a mountain pass route.  They then decline along the right leg to sea level when running along the front.  They then decline below sea level ("underground," in fact - that's why there is a spur over them) in the inner loop, and cross under the classification yard (the classification yard is indicative only, because the software doesn't have a 4-way switch or ladder).  The two extreme left vertical tracks on the layout are staging tracks in the closet (they are supposed to connect to the layout at bottom left, but don't because of software limits).  The staging tracks both connect into the sea level route along the back (the bottom of the top three horizontal tracks lines).  There is a passing siding below that sea level track, and then an industry spur below that.  I know the mains goinging under the yard isn't so-called prototypical, but with the grades involved, it made the most sense. 

Still hoping for more advice, inputs, etc.    

PJB,

This attachment may not be related. I was hearing of your need for a yard switch or a ladder 4 way. There are other ways to add 4 tracks, use an Atlas O72 wye and add two swithes off that the sky is the limit.  You will have close center line spacing. See attached photo that I found awhile back. I do not have my rr track with me currently. Also are you connecting your Atlas turntable to the track? Is that your engine service area and are you planning on a roundhouse? See #1 and or #4 for 072 wye ideas for yards.

Looking at Atlas O, but frankl;y, Ross kills Atlas when it comes to available yard ladders especially when space is an issue.  I don't have 5+ feet for turnouits and wyes just to get into the yard, which is what I think would be required with Atlas.  RCS has a 4-way switch that takes up around two total feet. 

For turntable, I was considering Atlas a few others, but again, I was more considering an alternative that ssems superior from the Millhouse River Studio turntable.  My first time on all this stuff, so most of my data is not from hands-on, so opinions are totally welcomed.

Peter

Ross and Atlas both have pros and cons that you can talk about ad infintum. Atlas is solid rail Ross is tubular.  Atlas O, is the cheapest turntable you will find at 24" across.

Millhouse and others are awesome but will cost you $1000 plus if new. Looking at your photo I would eliminate the loop directly above the turntable, it is just to crowed in my opinion, if you want to add engine facilities.

I have been planning to use AtlasO track, for the reason you stated and also because I bought a few pieces of AtlasO and GarGraves and, when rolling cars over both, the AtlasO is quieter and less echo-ee.  But I'm also starting to realize the benefits of GG.  Apples-to-apples (on a cost per piece-basis, as I don't think you can otherwise fairly compare hollow tinplate and solid nickle/silver), GG is substantially less expensive.  And, RCS offers a whole lot more turnouts than AtlasO, especially when space is a consideration. 

In terms of eliminating the reversing loop above the TT, I too have struggled with the placement of that trackage.  But unless someone can propose an alternative (still hoping for inputs from all you experienced hobbyists out there), eliminating it would leave me with one reversing loop (bottom left area), which kind of defeats the point. 

Peter 

A turntable and roundhouse take up a considerable amount of space. This will become a focal point for your layout. My advice is to carefully consider all of your options. The most inexpensive route may seem like a good choice now but may not be adequate in the long run in terms of operation and aesthetics. Remember, you will get what you pay for.  I believe you'll find Al Zamorski's Millhouse River Studio Turntable is the best turntable for the money. And, along with my roundhouse, you'll have an unbeatable combination.

Is this Dennis Brennan?  If so, I bought your book that features the Sandy Harbor Ry and loved it.  And, thanks for having an opinion in your book.  Most authors of such books just talk about the available options without any guidance as to what they chose or why.  After reading it, however, I did have a few (novice?) questions.    

I agree that price is a major consideration in buying a TT (or anything else).  But I also want to plan today as best I can for tommorrow, as our needs may grow.  In terms of TTs, I don't have many locomotives yet (although 2 already exceed a 24" wheelbase), but we are planning 072 minimum radius curves so we don't run into limitations on what engines we can purchase.  By the way, as a novice, I look at the Atlas TT and wonder - is it even protoypical?  In my very limited research into the TTs that I'd like to model, the bridge typically sits across a much more pronounced sunken pit. ?  

Peter

Hi Peter,

Yes, I'm the author. I'm pleased that you like it and I'm always available to answer any questions.

Already, you've found that the Atlas turntable will not accommodate 2 of your engines.  Get a turntable based upon the largest  engine that you may ever purchase. Al's 34" table will fit anything available. I believe the Atlas turntable is based on the Santa Fe's Redondo Junction turntable in Los Angeles that uses a through type girder bridge design. However, that is not a common design since the typical turntable uses a deck girder bridge. But, as you suspect, the biggest problem with the Atlas turntable is the lack of a turntable pit. That is not prototypical.

Dennis Brennan

We are going to use the 34" TT from Al, and the new RH from Dennis. Since these items are not in the RR Track software, I place a 34" object (circle) on the layout, and used the Korber RH for placement purposes. Obviously the DB RH is quite a bit bigger than the Korber kit but this is the focal point of our layout, and we are going to make it work. We have a lot of equipment to display and run so we're going to make it fit even if we have to rearrange some of the other tracks so things are not too crowded.

Speaking of which Dennis, we are going to have add another add-on kit so our RH is  7 stalls instead of 5. After seeing the construction pix, we'll get it in there somehow. I'll send you an email. 

The entire right side of our layout is very deep, and will have a few access hatches in order to get to all of the track. There's not really any other way to do it. We put the RH and TT where it's at, on the 2nd level, and towards the back because as you walk in the front door of the house, you will see all that at eye level right away.

You can see the big hole in the benchwork where the 34" TT will rest above. This benchwork is the lower level, but we still need access underneath once it's installed on the 2nd level.

Amazing layout!  Wish I had the room to do something like that. 

Doug,

LOL! No, problem. I'll wait for your email.