I really like this plan for a continuous runner in a normal sized room. The lower left even has room for a little town with some industrial trackage.
I copied your entire original post into Notepad. Then I edited it as needed to extract the excerpts, and copied that into the forum post.
Getting here a little late, and haven't read every detail, but a couple of things... 1. You mentioned making Dallas the "backdrop" and I couldn't agree more, or eliminate it completely. The focus of T&P operations in the area is definitely Fort Worth, and it is a much more interesting railroad town. "Not a big train area"...well Fort Worth is one of THE rail centers of the southwest US, home to the infamous Tower 55 which handles a bajillion trains per day. A few miles west is T&P's huge hump yard, and while I'm not completely up to speed on transition-era Fort Worth, the only reason you should feel the need to "take liberties" and "embellish" is if you want to put the Rocky Mountains in the background. 2. So, I would focus on the large yard and the numerous switching ops that are available. The stockyards is definitely a good scene. I would model a yard, put a partially functional Tower 55 interchange on one end of it, and use that as your basis. Loop around like the other suggestions have it done, add some industry, and call it a day. There's simply no way to model major aspects of D/FW in that space...what you want is to have the "feel"...some key structures, the yard and Tower 55, and some appropriate locos and rolling stock. 3. Regarding radius...I think you'd be ok somewhere in the middle from your 9 3/4" to the suggestions of 15-17". I have run SD70MAC's on 11" radius, but I think if you hover in the 12-14" range you'll get maximum use of space and decent running qualities. You'll likely be running 4-axle locos and smaller steam anyway. I think 14" on your main would let you run just about anything though.
Hi Monzarelli, This may, or may not, help. If you are using Peco track and turnouts you can download all there templates from here.... http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=tempc55 having all the actual sizes and angles to hand greatly helps me when I am planning or laying out ideas and the for installing final thing. Cheers,
Tower 55 Until a few days ago, I'd never heard of Tower 55. Growing up in Dallas, my only experiences with Fort Worth were as the "redneck city next door" and they had a better zoo than we did. I had no idea that there were trains there - go figure! Anyway, I'm pumped now that I know there is some train history in my back yard (pun?) and am going to rethink my layout based on this wealth of new information. Thanks to all you guys. I've already started working on a new design. Mozarelli
Mozarelli, Give serious consideration to using track planning software. I use AnyRail after looking at a bunch of different products. It was the easiest to learn.
Thanks Paul, I've downloaded it to my laptop and now my desktop. Played with it a little last night and will do so again tonight. It looks pretty straight-forward and is admittedly better than Visio. Any idea why some folks said the original plan looked like a Lionel layout? I don't get the reference (although I certainly know what Lionel trains are!). Mozarelli
Mozarelli, I do believe that when kids played with Lionel trains in days gone by, it was almost always rounded rectangles and squares of track interconnected and your layout had some resemblance to that. If you look in the Layout Design Discussion forum her on Trainboard, you will see pretty of trackplans going through discussion and in some cases improvements. It is pretty easy for us newbies to think in straight parallel lines and to think more track is better until we start building and realize that we cannot fit the industries, passenger stations etc where we thought they were going to go. AnyRail has a forum with a bunch of regulares that like to help people improve their layouts and to help understand how AnyRail works. Enjoy
Here is a typical Lionel layout: http://www.fulltiltspeedways.com/wp-content/gallery/dons-train/img_0258.jpg As is this one: http://i39.tinypic.com/348205t.jpg Here's a typical Lionel track plan: http://lionelllc.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/cssetupvideolayout-basic.jpg And another: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...bKp7sOpiZa48xE5QqCqTW1jbG-ekc-u6u4nRcg_WDd24Q You may note some resemblance... (insert winking thingie here) A further thought regarding reach... it's not just being able to get to a derailed car or uncouple a coupler at the back of the layout... it's also a matter of building the layout in the first place. You'll find it's going to get mighty difficult trying to build your layout at the full extent of your "wingspan." In addition to laying roadbed, you'll need to be able to solder feeder wires to the rails, ballast the track, build scenery, and maintain everything. This all becomes a huge challenge/burden when it's over 30 inches away from the edge of the benchwork. (And I speak from experience--quite a lot of it, actually.) Just more food for thought, and one of the principal reasons I designed this (which I'd posted previously):
Hmmm...I'm envisioning a lot of landscape and tall-ish structures at the back of the table, methinks.
My first layout was 3'x4' and had A LOT of 9" radius. My trains derailed constantly and once I got done with scenary I lost all interest in it because running trains was next to impossible and very frustrating. This is sort of why a few people are suggesting the wider radii. It looks like you have a great idea. One thing I would like to share, is when I started my current layout a few years ago, I presented a track plan and I got a lot of negative feedback. Now as I have my trackwork laid and have started some of the other things I enjoy (kitbashing, scenicking, etc) I am really glad I took some of the advice I was given. Truth be told, a lot of the opinions I received were correct in the end. This is a trackplan presented to me from TB another member after I "unveiled" my trackplan. I ultimately used it. Once I began actually building my layout, I ended up omitting a few things (mostly sidings, some of the double-track condensed to singletrack, lost some of the cross-overs, etc) from the trackplan as it didn't account for grades, and I'm loosely modelling the northeast. I am a victim to the reach issue as I have a long siding to a coal tipple which is on a grade on the far corner of my layout. Luckily I have no turnouts on this particular stretch, but if I did I would be climbing like a monkey to retrieve lost rolling stock. I will eventually have my benchwork on casters for this issue. I would estimate from the inner corner to the outer corner of my layout is about 40 inches. The outer siding is about 36". I was stubborn and am paying for it. As another member mentioned, leaving room for expansion is an awesome idea, and another I wish I had considered as I would love to have a switching yard eventually and have no discernable area where I can expand. Good luck and I can't wait to see what you come up with!
Second iteration using AnyRail Hello All, As recommended by David K. Smith and others, I have used AnyRail to re-design my layout after listening (I think) to the suggestions provided thus far. If you are inclined to provide feedback, I'm inclined to listen further. I have attached a JPG of the rough cut and the AnyRail file for the layout, in case anyone is interested in modifying it (Thanks in advance, if you do!). I'm considering connecting the yard lines into the track on the right end of the yard as well. Any thoughts on that? I'm not sure if the .any file actually attached. I'll see after I post this. If not, I'll try to resolve it. Mozarelli View attachment Mozarelli Layout 1.any Looks like the .any file did attach. Also, the minimum radius is set to 14"...
Well, I'll say you're off to a much better start. Now comes the problem report. First, you have no way of getting from one mainline to the other; you need at least one pair of crossovers, and preferably two. Your yard is tied directly into one of the two mainlines, which means your trains will always be passing through the yard as they follow the main. You can create a double-ended yard, as you mention, but it robs you of precious storage space, and also adds to the cost for all of the switches; single-ended yards are more economical in therms of cost and space utilization. And finally, you may notice the red-colored areas on the flex track in your plan: these are indicators that you are below the minimum radius. Here's a version of your plan with the above-noted issues corrected:
Maybe its just because I just now woke up and havent had coffee yet...but...the flow out from the yard to get to the warehouse puts you nose in on that siding. If you are running the main to be able to drop at the warehouse....you are running into the yard the wrong way when you come out after spotting cars. I know ya can use the turntable to turn the locomotive and its what I do too. Running 2 trains on the mains...the locomotves would be running engineers side to the inside. Yes...its been done but I dont find it common or prototypical. Just my .02 Now to get that first cup of coffee and have a look at it again...LOL.
Assuming those are 12" squares, you have only 16" of space for the walkway area between the horizontal and vertical parts of the layout. I would suggest a slight modification to the benchwork, along these lines: I think it would make reaching the upper left corner easier by giving you more space to move around.
Point well taken; easy enough to flip the direction of the siding. This is territory already covered; the OP has indicated that he does not wish to modify the existing benchwork.
David, I'm really liking this plan. One aspect that has gone by the wayside is the idea of having some elevated track - but as someone pointed out before (perhaps you!), I can't have all the elements I want unless I have more room. There's always a trade-off and, besides, in this layout there's no jsutification for it. I know I cannot make the T & P Warehouse completely to scale (some 40+" long!), but I was hoping to give some sense of its size by making it 24" long and 6" tall. As such, the track behind it will be impossible to access (even with my long reach and a stool!). Any objections to putting both T & P structures along the back behind the tracks and maybe swapping locations so that I can access the team track (is that what it's called?) in front of the warehouse? I'm thinking something like this: Ignore the red areas on this example. I just wanted to show my thoughts about the T & P structures. Speaking of the red areas, I knew they were related to minimum radius, but after messing with the layout for what seemed like forever, I couldn't find a way to correct it (still a newbie!) and was hoping someone would step in and help - like you! Thanks for that. As mtntrainman mentioned a potential problem with "running into the yard the wrong way", a question comes to mind: "Which direction does traffic flow? CW or CCW?" Concerning trimming back the edge of the tabletop, I don't really mind doing that - I've got about 6 inches to work with :closedmouth:. What I want to avoid is tearing everything down and rebuilding it. It seems less costly and easier to lay track close to the front and put structures and scenery to the back. Thanks again!
