Hi folks... Below is a drawing of my first layout. It is apx. 22' x 12'. I am trying to maintain 30" minimum radiuses as well as maintain #6 turnouts. I want to run 89' autoracks so I think that I shouldn't go much below a 30" radius, may be 28". I plan to use easements so maybe that will help too. Little elevation change, probably around 3" at most. The yards will be flat. I have most of the framework built with the exception of the loop backs. This is my first layout so I have built it in a modular way, i.e. each module is 8'-0" x 2'-0" with each module being screwed to the other. This way as I learn and expand I can more easily add/remove, modify, and move it without having to destroy it. So this is where I need help. One, should I reduce the radius so that I can maximize my runs? Two, any suggestions? Thanks for your help folks.... MS [ 25. June 2004, 18:29: Message edited by: mbshaw77 ]
To me,it looks like a nice clean layout. You may want to put in a few more sidings or passing tracks. That way you can get a little more operations going. Just my thoughts!!
Byron, I'll post a more detailed plan later indicating the walls and another obstacle, i.e. sump pump. I have to be careful, I'm building this in my brother's basement so I don't want to be too greedy. Although, I think I'm encouraging him to the "dark side". MS
The only thing that stuck out to me as a problem is that you have only one passing siding. You could do two passing sidings offset from the yard so that not all the action takes place right in front of the main yard area. I really like how the layout isn't all cluttered with track and switches. Your scenery should look really good because of this.
I'm a big fan of the modular, or sectional, or domino, or whatever you want to call it , I have my own verision. It allows for moving or expanding as life changes. For running longer cars the larger the curve the better. You sure don't want to is reduce the radius and when it's all done wish you had gone with you original In spots where the curve does get a little tight, a carefully placed tree or other scenic element can help hide that fact.
Those aisles all around will be very nice and could let you separate the "inside" from the "outside" with double-sided backdrops. If you plan to do that, you might want to consider changing the width of some of the sections to 30", although that may make it more challenging to maneuver through doorways (depth becomes and issue). You might want to think about making at least a few of the sections (like the ones with the yards) wider in this fashion. In looking at "the whole picture", a few ideas come to mind. First, as others mentioned, the lack of passing sidings will be an issue if you want to run mulitple trains around each other. There also seems to be room for more industry if that is your preference. Another other area you might want to consider is some sort of staging to suggest connections with the world beyond the basement. If you would like to run a few trians of different types, the current yard design might limit how many trains you can break-up or build if you have to do it all on the visible layout. If you want to run the long auto-racks and they only look good to you on 30" radius, then you may be stuck. Droppping the radius a bit might be a good compromise if you can live with the trade-off in appearance. Although I generally suggest to people that they will be happier avoiding duck-unders or lift-outs, in this case you might gain a lot by considering a doughnut style of layout. Eliminating the "Blobs" would definitely free-up some space for industries or scenery flexibility. That's a very tough trade-off, because the ease of access in your current design is very desireable. A lot depends on what you want to accomplish. Just having a place to run trains around is great if that's what you are most interested in at this time. But if you think you might like to move more toward simulating the way a real railroad operates, one or two more passing sidings and a bit more industry might be good things to consider. Or if scenery is your primary interest, keep the industry count low (I'd still think about a passing siding or two). By the way, you might consider a passing siding inside one or both "blobs" with a smaller radius. The autoracks might not look so good, but it's a way to get something back for all the real estate dedicated to turnbacks. Have you thought about a particular region, type of railroad, etc. that you would like to capture? Mainline railroading in the southeast is different from a CA shortline, for example, and that definitely has an impact on layout design. regards, Byron
Byron, Thanks for your comments. I have picked a prototype to model. I am loosely basing my layout on the Chessie/CSX that runs through mid-Michigan. It is a single mainline for the majority of the run. Mainly mixed frieght but the Soo/CP did run intermodal trains as well. As the layout grows I hope to expand the operations and size. For now this layout is going to be mainly for "running" trains and learning. I completed one loop this weekend so now I can run trains. Nothing special though. I didn't put anything down for a roaadbed but plan to go back and correct this. I just wanted to get something running. I am debating to use either cork or homasote from Homabed. I'm a little frustrated with gaps appearing in the trackwork. May be this is do to the fact there is no roadbed? Speaking of which, would either using cork or homasote minimize this problem? Would I be better of to glue the roadbed and nail the track to it? Does cork "hold" a nail/spike? MS
My own preference/ prejudice/ inclination would be to have some kind of staging somewhere so trains could come from "somewhere else" and go away "somewhere else." But I won't go into that in detail, just look at some small changes to existing plan. Passing siding right alongside major yard seems to concentrate stuff in one area, plus not suggest that trains are passing somewhere out on the line away from the yard. Passing siding does NOT have to be a long straight stretch, can be located on curve to put on another part of layout. On the right end of the plan, where the end lobe is barely wide enough for one turnback curve, a second track for passing can be added by making the penisula only wider by the amount of two track center line distances. Maintaining the aisle width between the two peninsulas requires only moving the left peninsula the distance that we widened the right one. No significant net increase or decrease of mainline track length. A passing siding can be added on the left peninsula without any increases in width needed. However, the passing siding would encroach a bit on one of the drawn industrial spurs so I suggested moving the spur. I just did some quick and dirty cutting and pasting to suggest revisions, should be drawn a little smoother than my doodle. Hope these thoughts help.
Just for operational interest, why not throw an inglenook siding inside the loop at the bottom center. Yeah, I'm on an inglenook and time saver kick at the moment, but it seems to me it would add operational diversity without looking out of place in an industrial area. Remember, the tracks on an inglenook dont HAVE to be all lined up and can be integrated into a small industial spur very nicely. It would also give you an area where you can get your train fix while you build the rest of your layout If your wondering what an inglenook is, go here (they are VERY challenging) http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/
Ken & Disisme, Here is a revised design of my layout. I think I have incorporated a few of your comments. I like the design and might add a couple of more sidings as time goes on. Thanks for your insight.
I have updated the "engineering" drawings. I have cleaned-up a few areas and made a couple of minor adjustments. Thought I'd just give a little update.
Looks like the refinements are deffinately taking shape. Good combination for continuous running and switching. Small enough for one opperator to handle yet big enough to have a couple of friends over too. I think you've got a real good mix going.
I like this alot. Nice looking layout now. I always find that on paper things seem so large and spread out, but then I build the layout and it's all cluttery. Your current plan seems to be perfect for expansion and sparse enough to really let a long train stretch out over the main. keep the progress reports coming.
Sure wish I could print out this last version to study. But, this new format with the advertising on the left makes that impossible. I only about 2/3 of it. I know this board needs the advertisers and we all need to support them. Just wish there was a way to deal with it. Any sugestions. I used to do this to learn from the rest of you. Not to steal anything. Nice looking layout.
