Hi folks, I need your opinioni on my new layout project ! Now that the ex-train room is ready for our futur baby, i have again some spare time for my hobby. I'm thinking of building a small switching layout just to keep trains (or just engines) running... Here are my goal : - layout has to be 82.5 X 11.8 inches (210 x 30 cm) divided in 2 parts. - Layout will be used to program and speed match engines (DCC). - Layout will be used to to test RRTC (PC controlling software) and will later be PC-controlled for semi-automated switching operations. - layout will need to have several 21.5 inches long tracks (blocks) to test train operations under software control. - layout will have a light scenery form easy storing. nearly forgot : we're talking about N scale, Modern era (with just 2 steamer for the fun), mainly grain operations (CN), and open to intermodal, coal or ore operations too. I'd like to have some run trough passenger trains (Software testing). After a few month of thinking around, this is what i found as a good "operational layout". :tb-wacky: Now I'd like to know what you'd change to better accomodate the switching phase and a better looking layout.smile:
Hi Bourkinafasso, I Like it, but then I like switching layouts. Looks like it could be an industrial district with 5 or 6 customers to serve. There is enough complexity in the plan to make the operation interesting but not overly complex. Not sure which is the main but thinking that it is the second from the bottom on the right and becomes the third from the bottom on the left (the one that ends at the back edge) I might relocate the left end and not have it cross the other track. But before making any changes test drive it for a few days to see how it works. Remember that it your layout and you can do what ever you want to do. Gary
when I was researching mine, I found a slew of example plans out there. Now, these are not my plans... just plans I found around the web. hopefully they'll give you some good ideas I'll PM it to you.. as I'm not sure I am 'legally' able to post the link here
Like Gary, I think the upper left track should not cross. I think the track that curve into the wall should parallel the track it switches from to create another team track. You would then have two businesses that have two tracks for switching and storage. If you still want two tracks leading off to the upper left, you can put a right turnout in the single track that would then lead off that edge of the layout.
From an operational viewpoint, the crossing doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Nothing wrong with having a non-functional crossing for aesthetic value somewhere, but in this plan the first thing that I asked was, "Why is that crossing there?" Have you considered what track(s) would be interchange tracks? How would a cut of cars from another railroad arrive on scene? How would the engine(s) get back home? If you don't want to bother with IXC tracks that's ok too but I think they add a lot to operational value even if they don't "really" go anywhere. But as said, it's YOUR RR so the choices are indeed up to you.
Here's another version of your layout plan. Got rid of your Xing at grade and switchback lead. Gave you space for a station, a stub end yard and two more sidings. You could even add an engine track to right of station. As an old timer RR civil engineering type told me, if it's on paper you can treat the lines like wet noodles and move them around as needed. No matter what design you finally adopt, do some switching before "casting it in concrete" w/ ballast, etc.
Wow guys !!! i never thought i'd get so much answers... DiezMon, this link is very very intersting, i'll have a close look at it and will sure grab some nice ideas! Gary, I was thinking of the second track from left to right, I guess i'll have troubles to clear the main when the local freight arrives...
I've done a few small modifications. have a look at my two plans (B and C version) On both plans the main line goes on the second track. The gray/blue track on the upper left is a mixed track served by local freight at night and by the commuter train at day.
Hi Bourkinafasso, The bottom one (C?) with the extra track for more switching possibilities and the additional cross over. Gary
I'd have to agree I like the lower "c" plan as well. Where do you think you want the industries placed you spoke about in your first post?
Looks really good. Is the intended main line the front most track? Som how I imagined the right track with the jog in it to be a siding. If it IS the main, then my comments are wortless... otherwise, all other possible "through" tracks are on diverging routs of turnouts. If the main through this seen is other then the front most track you might consider giving that line the straight route on all turnouts.
Seanm, your absolutely right about the switch positions... i havent't tried to correct this now, but will have a look soon. I've tried to place the industries on the plan... seems like it won't be easy to integrate all the building i like in such a small layout with so many tracks... A = not sur yet.. . B = Warehouse C = Engine shed, repairing facility for the M.o.W (Moose on the Way a track maintenance company...) D = Grain loader E = End of commuter station platform (the station should be out of the layout) F = Small intermodal facility if possibile Note that the grid is 5x5 cm (approx 2x2 inches) so i might have trouble with some buildings...
Nice switching layout plan. I really do like switching layouts--you get to operate trains in a small area and feel like you're doing something instead of watching them go round and round (which isn't bad sometimes either!). I don't think you'll have room for the grain elevator (industry "D"). That track has to be long enough for a loco and some cars to come from the MOW facility or the warehouse, so you'd only be able to put at most one or two hoppers there. I'd put a grain elevator on the middle two tracks on the left so you'd have room for a nice sized elevator and 6-8 cars as well as give a view block to the back run around track. What if you changed the direction of the pink turnout on the right front of your drawing and the blue turnout on the left front so they still do the same thing, but the opposite way? The reason for my thinking is that you can't really use the passenger track as any type of switching lead and it gives you two different access ways to the intermodal area. It would then turn the second track from the front on the right into another industry track or siding for an interchange. Hopefully I've not confused you too much. I know what I'm seeing and trying to say, but it may not be translating to this suggestion very well.
Ron, Concerning the grain elevator, you're right ! I was thinking of adding a small container terminal but grain loading facility is much more interesting... (lots of switching...:thumbs_up For the passenger station, your idea is good too, but i'm not thinking of doing a passenger terminal with car switching, engine running around, etc... The idea is just to have a commuter service that goes through the area and just stop to bring or pick up workers. Unfortunately i've already layed some tracks and started with the lower left portion... I'll try to post the last plan version with all the descriptions (mainline, industries) tomorrow:tb-biggrin:
Seb: You commented in an earlier post about the difficulty of squeezing buildings in among all the tracks. How comfortable are you with using half buildings or just the building fronts mounted against the backdrop to represent the industries...especially those industries in the back half and against the right and left sides? Instead of occupying a 4x8 cm space between 2 tracks, you would only need a 2x8 cm half building, or a 0.5 cm thick building front against the backdrop to represent your industry. It would be possible to create the illusion that the layout is deeper than it really is by combining full, half, and flat structures in the back half of the layout. Also, click the link and scroll down to Todd's (Pachyderm217's) post (#46) on taking photos of his models and then mounting the pics on his backdrop behind the actual models to create the appearance that buildings of similar color and design continue far into the distance. There is nothing sacred about mounting structures square on the gridlines, either. If you cut a building with a 4x8 cm rectangular footprint in half on a diagonal, then you can have nicely detailed building sides that are 4 cm and 8 cm long and give the impression that you have a larger building and deeper layout but only take up 16 square cm of space. For me, seeing two full sides of such triangular half-buildings against the backdrop or sides of a layout tricks my eyes into thinking that trains on tracks parallel to the 8 cm side of a 4x8 cm (triangular) building are passing a building that is 12 cm long. If you use mostly squarely mounted buildings and half buildings near the middle of the layout and more angled buildings as you get to the outer ends of the layout, you will be able to stand in the middle of the layout and see the front of buildings and industries that are close to you and the sides of buildings that are farther away from you...just as if you were standing along a real RR and looking a kilometer to the right or left down the tracks. A related point... How high do you plan to have your benchwork? The illusion of deep buildings is much stronger when you are not able to look down in a bird's eye view onto half buildings, and triangular shaped rooftops. Higher benchwork makes it easier to put building rooflines nearer to eye level so you can't see that it's only a partial building. It is sometimes possible to hide the tops of short triangular or half buildings behind a taller structure. And, if you are careful about the distance between them, you can force the perspective by putting a triangular-shaped or halved Z-scale building at the back of the layout that is exactly like the N-scale structure in front of it.
