Revised Track Plan - Opinions Needed

H

Hoss

Member
Nov 10, 2003
189
0
16
48
TEXAS
Visit site
I have revised the track plan yet again. Please take a look at it and see what you think. I managed to get the mainline minimum radius to 15" instead of 13.75" like it was before.

For now I'm leaving the staging on top, but I'm still considering moving to a second deck below. I haven't quite figured out how to get it down there yet is the problem.

Benchwork size is pretty much set so I will begin construction immediately. I still can't decide on the track plan.

A few particulars for those who didn't read my other thread:

- N scale
- Modern day BNSF
- Wanting lots of mainline running with some switching action
- Looking at modeling a rural/small town type area (Montana maybe)
- Layout dimenions are 10'x12'
- Staging is hidden behind elevated mainline and scenery (for now)
- I'm shooting for realism and don't want too much track (although I may have too much already)

I'm open for suggestions here....

aae.sized.jpg


If you want to see the full size (and legible) picture go HERE.
 
One question too....do today's railroads still use coal tipples like the one seen below or have they all gone to flood loaders? I'm modeling modern day BNSF so I may have to change some things if I can't use one of these.

09330000003221.gif
 
just a question

why in the lower left is there a triple track?

It looks confusing as it expands to quadruple track at the reverse loop.

I'd reduce that to a double track as it seems to serve no purpose as a triple track
 
Good question. The triple track actually is there for a reason, but I'm not sure that it's necessary. I intended for this area to serve as both the South Passing Siding AND as an interchange yard. The idea was to have the mainline (easternmost track), with a passing siding off of it (middle track) and then a track (west track) for dropping off or picking up interchange cars. The small siding on the far right (where the track quadruples) was intended to be a place to drop off or pick up coal cars for the mine to the south.

I'm open for suggestions on ways to make that whole area better. I'm not 100% pleased with it, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is I don't like.
 
Hoss - One thing to keep in mind is that the more "efficient" you make your plan, the less interesting operating it might become. If modifying your plan by deleting a track would then require an extra move or two when operating it, that may be a good thing. It's kind of a balance between making operations interesting but not so cumbersome that they are a pain in the rear.
 
Good point. I don't really like the look of a triple track anway....maybe I should delete the interchange track and just use the passing siding for interchange cars. Is that prototypical?
 
Originally posted by Hoss
Is that prototypical?
Click to expand...
You can find a prototype for darn near anything! What you need to do is make up a legend for "how it got that way" on your layout. (Or not, it's your layout, after all!)
 
Hello Hoss, your plan is to me way over crowded with track, keep it simple. I also note that you intend to come off a 20" high area to 0" in only three feet. Thats steep, even for N gauge.
However, the main line looks interesting, I would keep that in but revise the rest of it (IMHO)

Cheers friend
Shamus
 
Simple is what I want....but still interesting to operate and not boring.

To clarify on the 20" thing....the highest elevation of track is 3" (with the top of the foam board being 0"). The 20" you're referring to is the radius of the curve. All elevations are noted by "Elev. = X".
 
Just my 2 cents worth :D . This would be IMHO just as realistic but give you a better scenery to R.R. ratio, alot less maintinance, less money (fewer switches) and the ability to stage bi-directional traffic. I would keep your staging hidden (probably using a cut or double tunnel portal on the upper right). You can still leave a train running if you want of course and it doesn't cut down on your local switching. Also it solves the problem of getting the one track to cross over the other, like Shamus said that was a bit much even in N-scale. Sorry for my crude alterations art is not my forte' :D :D :D I'll go away and leave you alone now!!!!!!!!! :p :D
 
You know....you just might be onto something there. Hmmmm.....keep 'em coming, keep 'em coming. Tonight when I can get back on RTS I may have to make some modifications.

Don't stop now...you guys are giving me some good feedback. :D
 
a bad thing

At the very bottom right you make an S-curve where the 20" curve reverses direction. This can cause all sorts of derailment and uncoupling problems. you need to put a 5" straight in there, which may alter the other chicane curve about halfway up the right side.

(edit)


looking again, you have similar curves all over the track.

That will need significant revising
 
I tried to keep some straight sections in those S curves, but in some cases it just didn't fit...or maybe I just didn't put them in. The only reason for the curves was to keep things interesting. I don't like long lengths of straight track. I like watching long trains wind their way through the curves. :D

Thanks for the reminder. I definitely want good trackwork. Derailments are BAD. ;)
 
Alright gents...based on your suggestions I made some changes. While it's not shown on the drawing really, I still intend for the staging (and now the mainline and North Passing Siding) to be hidden behind either scenery or a backdrop.

Here's the revised (again) plan, or you can go HERE for the full size version.

Once again, I'm wide open to suggestions. :)

aaf.sized.jpg
 
Your Track Plan

Hoss,

On your first plan you had some space between the “North Main” and “Hidden Staging”. With your revised plan I don’t see how you can hide your staging because you’ve move the North Main awfully close to the staging. Also, you mentioned you may move staging below the layout. I have an east and west staging on my layout and both are easily accessible FROM ABOVE. I have read many articles in the modeling press where guys have either “day-lighted” their staging or moved it above board or into closets and such. “Murphy’s Law” is rampant on N scale under the table staging yards! Unless you’re a contortionist or have extremely small hands, I’d think about that one. Nothing worse than trying to re-rail those small trucks when you can't see them all that well. :)
 
I think there might be a problem with the runaround tracks at the industries, since you can't use them without fouling the main. The one at the south industry could be moved a bit north, couldn't it? That way, the track to the mining company would be a little longer which I think wouldn't hurt.

The other runaround track could be placed near the grain elevator instead.

I would extend the staging yard and make it double ended, unless there are scenery reasons why this wouldn't work. If you make it twice as long there would be room for four trains on the two tracks.
 
Re: Your Track Plan

Originally posted by Cinnibar
Hoss,

On your first plan you had some space between the “North Main” and “Hidden Staging”. With your revised plan I don’t see how you can hide your staging because you’ve move the North Main awfully close to the staging.
Click to expand...

Right. As I have it drawn right now, both the staging and that portion of the main/passing siding would be hidden behind scenery.

Also, you mentioned you may move staging below the layout. I have an east and west staging on my layout and both are easily accessible FROM ABOVE. I have read many articles in the modeling press where guys have either “day-lighted” their staging or moved it above board or into closets and such. “Murphy’s Law” is rampant on N scale under the table staging yards! Unless you’re a contortionist or have extremely small hands, I’d think about that one. Nothing worse than trying to re-rail those small trucks when you can't see them all that well. :)
Click to expand...

You bring up good points. Unfortunately I don't have a closet in this room to hide the staging in, so I either have to have it ON the layout or underneath. While I can see advantages and disadvantages to doing it both ways, right now I'm leaning towards keeping it on the layout.
 
Originally posted by Urban
I think there might be a problem with the runaround tracks at the industries, since you can't use them without fouling the main. The one at the south industry could be moved a bit north, couldn't it? That way, the track to the mining company would be a little longer which I think wouldn't hurt.

The other runaround track could be placed near the grain elevator instead.
Click to expand...

Can you clarify that a little bit? I'm not quite following what you're saying.

I would extend the staging yard and make it double ended, unless there are scenery reasons why this wouldn't work. If you make it twice as long there would be room for four trains on the two tracks. [/B]
Click to expand...

You mean like curving the staging yard around and make it double ended?? That's possible...and I had thought about that actually. I may have to play around with it some more tonight and see what else I can come up with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom