I'm getting a table made that should be ready shortly, so this is my last chance to figure out what exactly I'm going to do layout wise. It's dual level so I can have overpasses without worrying about grades with the top level for passenger and the bottom level for freight. It's going to be DCC using Digitrax stuff (mostly) and I plan to automate it at some point in the future. I'm looking for feedback in case I forgot something important or in case I'm doing something wrong that seems correct now, but will bite me in the ass later on.
I see lots of spurs and yards, for lots of industries, but no passing (double-ended) sidings. Do you plan to limit operation to one train per level? That would defeat one of the main advantages of DCC over DC. The upper left yard on the lower level has a fairly nasty S curve leading to the right-most spur. Also, the ladder would be more efficient if the 2nd to top switch were flipped to a lefty and replaced the curve immediately off the 1st switch. On the left end, the lower track runs directly under the upper track. While visually interesting, that section will be a magnet for derailed cars, etc., and getting to them to clear the blockage will be a royal pain. I would shorten one or the other loop, so that one track is not entirely underneath the other for an appreciable length. On the upper level, you have two yards that "point" in (enter from) opposite directions, meaning transferring cars from one yard to the other will require running the loco by itself around the whole layout to get to the other end of the train. Typically, this is where a passing siding on/near the yard lead, long enough to hold your longest train, is used to get the loco from the front (pulling the train to the yard) to the rear (pushing the cars onto the yard track(s). If you intended on running two trains in opposite directions using the two yards, then you really need a passing siding or two so that one train can "wait in the hole" while the other passes by. I think your layout would be more versatile and enjoyable if you had a ramp or two to transition between the levels. Grades are pretty simple if you use the Woodland Scenics inclines; well worth their trouble. I use Kato Unitrack, and have used their inclined pier sets with bridges and viaduct track sections with very good results. These are only ideas I would consider if this were my layout. But you gotta do what you wanna do with your layout!
Thanks, some food for thought. I'll give some of those ideas a try. I tried to design a long ramp that connected the tracks, but I couldn't figure out anything I liked. I concluded that since I'm modeling New Jersey where the freight and passenger trains have separate tracks anyway, this would be prototypical.
I've made your suggested changes and they've seem to worked quite well. I've also put in where I'm going to put some of the industrial buildings and the main station to give you a better idea of what I'm doing. The industry looks better now and the single track on the right will give the signaling something to do. I'm still undecided about the passenger tracks and I might just switch them back at some point. Also, since only the rear of the layout is against a wall I'm sticking with the the overpasses as they'll be quite accessible. I also got rid of the S-curve and I'm pretty sure you meant to type "switch to a righty" as that switch was already a lefty and switching it to a righty cleaned that part of the layout up quite well.
Wow, the minor changes have made a big difference! There's one place left with a sharp S-curve, and that's on the middle freight spur (the one to the right of the forge). If you add a short straight piece (typically the length of the longest freight car you would park on that spur) in between the two opposite curves, that should avoid any problems. That will move that spur to the left by the length of the straight piece, but it looks like you have room for it.
Well, the track is ordered and all I need now is to figure out how to split it up into sections. Here's my plan below: Both lines into the loco shed have target sections that will (hopefully) open and close the doors when the loco approaches and goes all the way in. I should have 5 extra sections on the BXP88, so if you see anywhere I could add one, let me know.
Nice update! I keep wondering (wandering) back and forth whether the layout should be a bowl or a mountain (e.g. inner track loop is sunken or elevated, relative to the outer loop.) I think either will work okay, but it's hard to figure out which way until you build it and scenic it. One consideration: a bowl type layout invites the user to stand (or sit) up higher relative to the layout (to see inside), which is not usually the best viewing angle for the trains, especially on sharp curves typical of small layouts. Eye level viewing better represents the view we typically get of 1:1 railroads, and hides the angular, segmented look of the train from above. But there's something about a mountain valley that sucks the viewer into the layout. Have you thought about having the right end upper tracks being elevated on bridges and curved Unitrack viaducts? While the viaducts look very modern, a coat of black or rust paint on the (separable) viaduct structure and piers transforms them into more conventional looking US railroad structures. (Unitrack Viaducts consist of a separate outer shell and the regular Unitrack piece itself.) The track joints line up with where piers would avoid the lower tracks. That would make for a dramatic scene when running trains on both levels, crossing over each other. And the open-ended valley would be a little more realistic topographically than a closed bowl. In nature, closed bowls typically become lakes, unless they are in the desert or something. Do you plan on installing operable track-side signals? Automating them will consume lots of occupancy detection.
I am installing signals using the Digitrax N scale ones powered by a SE74, but plan to slowly switch over to ones from custom signal systems. For automation, I've got the whole track detection sectioned off at the turnouts with a few mainline signals thrown in here and there. The BPX88 make that relatively simple (plus transponding). As for the bowl/mountain debate, a mountain looks cool and gives you a lot of scenery options, but the trains aren't visible in the back. Also, I'm printing the viaducts, so they'll be modern mostly because straight lines are easier to print.
