Whats your opinion.

Discussion in 'N / Z Scale Model Trains' started by jkinosh, Mar 7, 2006.

  1. jkinosh

    jkinosh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just threw this together during lunch, and wondered what everyones thoughts were.

    Does this look like something that is doable?


    [​IMG]

    -edit-

    Any suggestions are welcome. I have another drawing that I'll upload after I get home from work. I added a small industry spur in the middle, and a Turntable near the yard.

    Jacob
  2. sumpter250

    sumpter250 multiscale modelbuilder

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm assuming you have an "over, and under", rather than a crossing. Doesn't look like there's much "industry", but that could be added....yeah, it's doable.
  3. pgandw

    pgandw Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Get rid of the S curve where the tracks cross; specifically the one that reverses curve direction without any intervening straight going across the layout area. That portion needs at least 5 inches straight - preferably 10" - between the 2 curves. It means the track will be more of a diagonal through the crossing area.

    In addition to adding a few spurs - and not all facing the main line in the same direction - add a passing track along the long diagonal.

    yours in track planning
  4. jkinosh

    jkinosh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the updated version.

    I would like to keep the s-curve, as I liike the look of trains coming around them. I tries adding a passing side to it, but it just didn't look quite right, I have attached a zip file with the Right Track file in it. If you can help, please have at it.

    Jacob


    [​IMG]

    Attached Files:

  5. Triplex

    Triplex Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    0
    S-curves may cause derailments, especially with longer equipment.
  6. 60103

    60103 Pooh Bah

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jacob: The design requires you to pull out of the yard and then back into it when you're done. If you can do this reliably, your trains are better than mine.
    Your new sidings go in the opposite direction to the yard -- if you pull out of the yard, you go head first into the siding and you can't leave anything there.
  7. Triplex

    Triplex Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's why you need a passing/runaround track near the spurs.
  8. Catt

    Catt Guest

    How big are the squares used for this plan?They appear to me to be atleast 24" square to me.
  9. jkinosh

    jkinosh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    The squares in the drawing are 12" x 12"

    I understand what you are saying about the needing a siding/runaround track. I'll see what I can do to add on to the next revision.

    as far as the yard, I am not sure what I can do to easily change this as I have an area of about 5' x 8' that I can easily use, and the side to the left of the yard and across the top are going to be against walls. I need to leave the other sides as open as possible since this is going in a basement that is also used as a woodshop, so I need to be able to manuver lumber around for other projects.

    Jacob
  10. sputnik

    sputnik Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can understand your desire for an "S" curve, to get the look of trains snaking through. It's a very cool effect. The problem is that if the "S" curve is too sharp, it will look awkward instead of smooth, and you won't get the effect you want (even if you only have short engines and 40' cars).

    One issue I foresee with this particular design (assuming that there is a wall on the left side of the layout) is that there will be a long, cumbersome reach to the yard from in front of the engine facility. More importantly, operators will be reaching over that facility, possibly knocking over things (and that's if you don't have a tall structure in the way, like a coaling or sanding tower). It's cool to have the engine facility up front to show off engines, that's a good feature, but you don't want operators reaching over that kind of area.

    As long as there is no wall against the bottom of the layout (at the end of the yard), a possible alternative would be to move the engine facility to the lower left corner of that extension. Then have the yard tracks run at an angle along where the turntable currently is. You would still be reaching aways to operate the yard, but it would be closer, and you won't be reaching over the engine facility. Also, the yard tracks would be more consistent in length. If you wanted to minimize the reach over factor, you could even move the yard tracks to be parallel with the front edge of that extension. I could sketch out those alternatives if they aren't too clear.

    Regardless, I would suggest that even if you are happy with a particular arrangement, come up with different alternatives to make sure that there isn't something that you'd like better. Play around with different options at this stage.

    I would also suggest doing simple mockups too, especially if you already have some track, cars, and engines. Set up a temporary table or even cardboard top in the area, and set some track, cars, and engines in certain locations, and see how they look. See how well certain areas are to reach when you operate. Use a few small boxes and/or car jewel cases and the like to simulate buildings, or prop up bridges to their proper height. And when you are reaching towards a particular area, don't see whether you can reach something or not, but how awkward it is. This has a significant effect on how pleasant operating will be. The last thing you want to do is make operating a frustrating experience.

    ---jps
  11. jkinosh

    jkinosh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand what your saying about the s-curve, but not sure on the Part about moving the Yard and engine facility. I quick drawing would be very helpful.

    Jacob
  12. sputnik

    sputnik Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've sketched this out on the first picture.

    And I've sketched that out in the second picture.

    Both of these are rough sketches, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about with arrangement. They might not fit the same when you lay things out exactly with whichever planning software you are using. To get the angles I've put in those sketches, you will have to use some short curves after the turnouts. But this is when you try all sorts of things.

    ---jps

    Attached Files:

  13. jkinosh

    jkinosh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like what you did, I'll try to change the Layout in RTS and see how it looks, Not if I could just figure out what to do witht the S-curves. and still be able to get some interesting scenery involved.

    Jacob

    -edit-

    [​IMG]
  14. brakie

    brakie Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jacob,May I submit that you start over with a new plan? As it stands now even with the "improvements" you are still face with a stub end yard where you will need to back in/pull out or pull out /back in.Not a very good situation if you wish to have trouble free operation.
  15. brakie

    brakie Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's my idea.I eliminated the turn table/round house since its not really needed unless you plan on running steam locomotives and added a diesel servicing are with 2 stall engine house.I also added a inbound/outbound track with a runner track that can get your locomotives to and from the engine service area.I also added two passing tracks and added industry and town area.

    Attached Files:

  16. jkinosh

    jkinosh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like everyone's ideas so far. If anyone wants to take a stab at something that will fit into approximately the same area, have at it.

    I really just want somthing that I will be able to have continuous running, maybe a small 2 or 3 track yard, and some interesting scenery.

    Jacob
  17. jkinosh

    jkinosh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was reading throught the April Issue of MRR during lunch today, and thought about doing something more like this.

    [​IMG]

    It is a modified version of David Popp's Naugatuck Valley RR.

    I figure if I start with this, I should be able to add to it later if I can acquire more space.

    Comments and suggestions are always Welcome.

    Jacob
  18. brakie

    brakie Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well,its your layout and its design should reflect YOUR givens and druthers.

    The following is my personal thoughts on Mr.Popps track design.

    The above plan wouldn't keep me interest for more the 3 loops as IMHO it serves no real reason as a transportation system and looks very boring to operate and a very basic loop de loop..
    Understand a loop de loop layout needs to be design well enough that it will keep the builders interest for several years after its built..After all the builder will need to live with his/her creation or redo it if needed.IMHO its best to do right the first time around and this comes by a good track design that is easy to build,a joy to operate and one that will keep the builders interest up for years to come..Sadly David Popps plan fails the test even with add ons..Reason? There is a lot of wasted space in the track plan that could be use wisely with the proper track design.
  19. Triplex

    Triplex Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you even see the plan? There's only one mainline loop. It looks decent. Could be improved with a couple more spurs. Also, the short passing track on the inside bottom of the U can be lengthened in a way that will also provide smoother running. Move the switches farther apart and swap their places, so the curved legs from part of the mainline. You follow?
  20. brakie

    brakie Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes,I saw Mr.Popps plan on page 53 of Aprils MR..Sadly,that plan does waste a lot of space that could be used for bigger and better things.
    I also noted the same items you did.That stub end stagging yard would be a real pain since you would need to fiddle the cars and engines by hand..Not a very good idea in HO let alone in N Scale..I would double end the stagging yard or eliminate all together.
    There is NO engine service area at that one yard and again its stub end and again you either got to pull out and back in or back in and pull out not very prototypical.
    So,in general the layout lacks LDE.