Hi, This is my first layout design (75cm x 150cm) in N-scale. The switch-back grade is ~3% and all ops on the switch back are possible while running a train on the outer 'main line'. The box on the lower right will house the electronics (DCC++ with Arduinos and interface to JMRI). The small turntable (80mm) will be scratch built for the short locos (switchers). I would appreciate any comments on the track plan.
I like it. Looks like it could be fun and also interesting to build and add scenery too. My only suggestion would be .... ... to try and add an industry that might fit the theme, Sumner
I like your idea of an additional industry. Maybe a logging operation on top of the hills and a saw-mill as an industry, or, a coal mine and a power plant next to the lake. The layout will be set the 1950s ( I am showing my age ), where steam and diesel was still the go ... soot, grime and noise was the way.
I like Sumner's idea as well. I would think in terms of loads and empties and where cars will be routed to. It gives your railroad a purpose and gives you a goal for switching and operations. A sawmill and logging area are a good pair. I would also consider using that foreground track (with the train on it) as a team track or interchange track. An interchange gives your railroad a connection to the off-layout world and other railroads. It gives you one more place to send cars to, and an opportunity to set foreign equipment on your layout. Do you have a specific railroad in mind? With a logging industry, you may be leaning more towards a small class-3. Jack Burgess's Yosemite Valley comes to mind here. If you want a mainline loop for continuous running, you may be able to push more towards larger railroads, but with that switchback, I would try to focus more on a 'backwoods' subject. I doubt you would see many switchbacks on many major railroads in the 1950's. I think it gives you an opportunity to research and model a less-known railroad, and the small size means the layout can be more freelanced to fit the space.
Thanks for your remarks. I had a look at Jack Burgess's impressive work, and I will do some research into local, Tasmanian, operations. You are right with your comment that switchbacks aren't really a thing of the 50s. There were a few Tasmanian railroads mainly for mining, which all disappeared in the early 60s. Incidentally, one of these operated the first Garratt (0-4-0+0-4-0) on 2' narrow-gauge in 1910 and later even two 4-4-2+2-4-4. Maybe the 1920s would be a more suitable era to focus on. There are quite a few English locos that were imported at the time available in N-scale.
I like it! Will this layout's top edge be up against a wall, or will you be able to walk around to that side? The reason I ask is that the top side of the loop, and the track up to the switchback could also have bridges, more or less aligned with the bridge on the switchback, with all three crossing a dramatic canyon opening up on the top edge of the layout. If the top side is up against a wall (i.e. the back side of the layout), that canyon sight line would be lost, and the effect not as nice. But in nature, natural sinks (which the hour-glass-shaped contour infers) or pits don't exist very often. Water would collect and overflow, slowly eroding a drain to somewhere, making a canyon in the process. Is the switch lead at far left on the switch-back intended to stop at/before the left end, or indicate that the mountain line continues off-layout. That actually could work well either way. But if the bottom track (where the train is shown) is to be an interchange track, such a mountain junction could be the "road to elsewhere" for which the exchange track exists at the yard. Imaginary, off-layout destinations, and the requisite exchange track, can give you an excuse to show just about any kind of loco or rolling stock you want on the layout. I would also add a run-around on the switchback, so that the loco can switch ends for the trip back down the mountain to the yard below. However, a steam loco would also need a turntable or Y. With a little adjustment of the trackage around the switchback, a Y might work well there. It would probably squeeze the space for the new industry below it, but the turntable below could be adjusted, with entry on the same side as the storage track(s), and the turntable pushed further into the bend of the mainline. This could give you some room to stretch the yard (and exchange track.)
Thanks for some great ideas. I have made a couple of changes as suggested: added an industry and modified the spur with the turntable to get rid of the tight curve (and added a bit to yard). Also, all points (turnouts) are now #5s. I will make a full size track plan on paper to see how a Y and a run- around would work out. Pushing 'empties' in reverse to the top is probably ok, but for the trip from the switch back to the yard, it would be nice to have the engine in front and facing forward. If necessary, I might bury the main loop under the plateau to have room for that. I will work on that ... The idea of bridges over a canyon is also appealing. I have changed some of the contour lines to reflect that.
I have been asked what I plan on doing with my layout plans. I have a 2.5'x6' table this nice layout would fit on along with one on a 4'x8' that I could also support. What I like about both layouts is they have exit lines. So I'm watching (as much as possible) both as they develop. It will be in a 13'x10' room with stackable shelving along both long walls and one short wall with a window and heat/ac vent could have a narrow elevated connector as well. But then I was thinking around the room switching layout may be good for my HO collection. Both switcher steam engines and DCC. After a big mug of jo I think maybe both elevated layouts may be workable. Best wishes with your plans. Rich
I agree with moving the turntable. But, isn't having one make it more necessary that the layout be connectable to DCC. It already looks to be necessary. Rich
I like that new canyon! However, the terrain at upper right could be problematic to maintain a natural drainage, and avoid a sink (a place where if you poured water on your layout, it would pool up instead of running off the layout). In nature, land sinks become (at least seasonal) lakes. You will have some complex terrain that allows the line to the switchback to ascend right to left, but the terrain from that line at its tunnel exit, toward the canyon needs to descend right to left, to drain into the canyon. It will take a bit of a ravine (a feeder into the side of the canyon), but can be done, and would enhance the overall terrain. You just have to think about how you build up (or cut away, depending on your method of building the layout) the terrain to get it right. You may need to refine your layout drawing with more finely spaced (vertically) topo lines to plan your terrain. Just remember, water either flows downhill, or else backs up until it can flow downhill or evaporate.
Getting a Y and run-around siding into the switchback is gonna be "fun"! I would look at widening the angle between the ascending line and the line to the mine at the switch, since you need more room there to use a reasonable curve radius to close the wye. It might help to bring the switch lead and bridge over the main down closer to the corner, angling more downward into the corner. That will mean either sliding the turntable to the right, or pivoting the storage tracks to the upper right of the turntable, or both. There's no rule that says the lead into a round table has to be opposite the storage tracks. I think you could feed the turntable off the 3rd yard track from bottom, rather than the 4th (top) track, which would mean you could have both of those tracks accessible from the turntable. The turntable itself (and a track on the opposite side) could also be used to extend the yard lead on that end. I think if you rotate the industry closer to horizontal, that gets rid of the curve between the two switches, and buys you more length (or replaces the length you may have to trim to avoid the turntable & tracks.) You can move the industrial building above the tracks if it gets too tight below the tracks. In the yard, you can gain some length on the right end by sliding the switches up into the curve (and flipping them so the through route is the curved leg, and the diverging route is the straight leg. Or maybe use curved switches. You could also do the same trick on the left end of the yard and interchange track. But, in case you need reminding, this is YOUR layout! You don't need to turn it into mine!
Wow. This is turning into an interesting thread. The layout will be DCC, so turn-tables, reversing loops, etc. will be fine. Here is an old idea, how to get a runaround/Y combo into a tight space. The gradients would be 2.8% to the switch and 3.5% to the top (I can get that < 3%). Things need to be shifted a bit to make the baseline of the Y longer (using a double slip would also save ~100mm/50'). There may be a way to get the tail of the Y onto a trestle to avoid burying the mainline. The switch 'plateau' is currently 40mm over the mainline, the top clears the mainline by ~55mm. These are hills, rather than mountains so quite a lot can be done with cuts and embankments. This needs full-size cardboard 3D mock-ups of some areas ...
I would rotate mainline on the wye closer to the turn table. This would allow a run around on so you can run stuff up the switch back. This may be too much track though for your taste. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for all of your input. There is only so much that will fit on a small layout. With the added industry and the modified switchback, the layout seems already busy enough. With one train operating on the main-line loop, and a switcher, or two, working the industry, the switch-back and the engine shed with the turntable there are plenty of things to do. I will use this layout to set up some automated ops ( DCC with sensors, etc. ), which will keep me busy for a while.
Yes, it's is getting crowded a bit. Like living in the city. If you want to and have the room it's also set up for extension. Best wishes for a lot of fun. Rich
Thanks Rich. This will be my layout to get more experience in modelling and in dealing with DCC in particular. I am sure, there will be a 'big' layout some time in the future ...
For some reason DCC seems to imply harder than DC for a lot of railroaders out there. Is it the extra 'C' I wired my test track for both and it works for both with just the flip of a toggle switch. If anything I feel DC is harder and more expensive to wire and use and more complicated. Running multiple engines on the same section of track at the same time is easy with DCC with no special wiring required. With DC you aren't going to do that and have them running at different speeds and/or directions. With DC you need to set up individual blocks with switches and wiring to multiple throttles to be able to switch between throttles and such. When running you need to keep track of where engines are, are the electrical switches set to the right throttle and such. Once you want to control a block with more than one throttle those switches are going to get more and more expensive and the wiring much more complicated. With DCC all of that goes away. I think you are going to find that dealing with DCC is going to be amazingly simple. Sumner
Hmm. I don't think that DCC is that 'amazingly simple'. The documentation on the NmraDcc libraries ( and others) is rather sketchy and getting my servo calibration in situ routine to work and storing the final values in the Arduino's EEPROM was interesting: even with I2C devices , the number of pins and RAM/EEPROM is very limited (particularly on UNOs and Nanos). Currently, I have one Arduino as a DCC controller, one as a decoder looking after points (servos and feedback), another one as a decoder for sensors and signals, and there will be a fourth as a throttle/switch-panel. The entire thing will also be controllable via JMRI (which, while quite functional, is not that user-friendly to setup and configure). This multi-Arduino setup will be fine for a larger layout in the future (up to 1024 points (turnouts) for each decoder ). However, you are right that, at the operational level, DCC is superior, by far, to 'do' things.
