Atlas N-501 Trackplan

poppy2201 Jan 5, 2008

  1. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Revision 12

    Okay, here's revision 12 which is basically revision 8 utilizing Atlas Code 55 track instead of Code 80. I have played around with it and I think this is as good as it is going to get considering the length and geometry of Code 55 and still fit it in the space allowed. Using flex track, I think I will be able to tweak it more as I actually start building it. The turnouts are a combination of using #5's and #7's.

    [​IMG]

    The good news is I will only have to buy some #5's as opposed to buying all Code 80 track. Critique away!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2008
  2. friscobob

    friscobob Staff Member

    10,534
    707
    129
    Tha track in the lower right-hand corner looks tight, radius-wise. Would you be better off not having it there, since it seems to be not much more than a run-around? Perhaps, stubbing that one off behind the engine house & treating it like an interchange with another railroad, or possibly storage, or eliminating it altogather.
     
  3. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    I agree with Bob about the track above the engine shed looking tight. If the track is to be a yard lead, it wouldn't need to tie into the main. The only benefit of keeping the run-around there might be pulling a car from the 1st or 2nd yard track and running around it to put it into the engine shed...and if you know you have to do that move during your switching, you could plan ahead and use the arrival-departure track after you've cleared it and before you start building the next train on it. I definitely think you should keep the yard lead...just get rid of the turnout at its end.

    I'm not sure I understand why you would position the left hand crossover on the left and the right hand crossover on the right...it seems to make for a much shorter run-around section for the RWM sidings. It looks like you may only be able to run around 1 or 2 cars at a time when traveling clockwise.

    As an alternative, I think you'd be better off flipping each of the crossovers to the other end, so the right hand crossover is on the left and the left hand is on the right. You would also be able to eliminate the S-curves through the crossovers by having the inner loop pass through the curved portion of the inner loop turnouts...just like you did for the turnout off the main into the yard. (Yeah...I know it isn't prototypical; but, your trade-off in a longer run-around for RWM and dramatically improved reliability through the crossovers [which you will be using multiple times on every run] will be worth it.)

    The other advantage when you work RWM while running clockwise, is that you will be able drop the back half of the train on the curve toward the interchange turnout leaving yourself a little more than 1 loco's length from the right side crossover, pull up to 2 cars forward to clear the right side crossover but still be in front of the RWM siding turnout, pull your loco forward far enough to back across the left side crossover for the run-around, cut back onto the inner loop over the right side crossover and push your cars into RWM without having to pull them forward to clear the RWM turnout. I think you'd have about 2 car lengths on the other side too, for counter clockwise running.
     
  4. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Tweaking of Revision 12

    Okay, there will be not be a Revision 13 because..........not that I'm superstitious!

    Here's Revision 12 that has been tweaked, so let's start from this and move forward:

    [​IMG]

    Thanks for all the input.
     
  5. Mark Smith

    Mark Smith TrainBoard Member

    306
    9
    18
    Smooths things out and addresses the issues raised. Good job.

    If you want that interchange back you can always cut the light blue loop on the right, use the upper half for interchange and the lower for the yard lead. Your departure track doesn't need the light blue track so it would not affect overall operation.
     
  6. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Thanks Mark. As for the interchange, I was thinking of something along this line:

    [​IMG]

    My thought is that for future expansion if at the bottom right the engine house may be removed, track extended and connected with a 90ยบ crossing and on to another door layout on the right. Then wouldn't it be plausible to have a major railroad interchanging from the South and one from the East? The engine shop and yard would probably be reconfigured and a new yard could be established on another door layout on the left. Anyway, thanks again everyone. I'll decide on the interchange as construction and track laying commence.
     
  7. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    Charles:
    Tweaked #12 has functionally eliminated your yard lead and, as a result, forces you to use the main any time you classify cars, or build/break down a train on the arrival departure track. This is probably not a good arrangement, especially if you plan to expand in the future without tearing out the entire right half of this layout. The yard throat, yard lead, A-D track, and turnouts from the main to yard tracks in Revision #12, all combine to make a very well designed yard for a door sized layout. Definitely a keeper!

    To get room for a working yard lead, as well as for an interchange on this layout that can provide connections to future expansions without tearing up much track, consider sliding ALL tracks on the right side of Revision #12 (inner and outer loops, engine shed, yard throat, interchange, etc) straight to the left about 3 inches. This will give you room to run the yard lead as configured in Revision #12 upwards and parallel to the outside of the oval up to about 2:00---scenic it so (to a viewer by the yard) it disappears around a slight curve into trees and the viewer can believe it connects to the main just around the curve, but someone standing by Sunrise can't see it at all.

    Consider running the interchange track down to about 2:00 or 2:30 between the yard lead and the edge of the layout. I would encourage you to NOT connect the yard lead to the main OR to the interchange track...in fact, putting trees or small hills between the main and yard lead and between the yard lead and the interchange track will create a sense of greater distance from the yard to the interchange. Make viewers think there is more there than there really is. It will spoil the illusion of separation or distance, if the viewer's eyes are drawn completely across the layout by any direct connections between the yard lead and the interchange track.

    It may be helpful to curve the interchange track so that it seems to disappear off the right edge of the layout at about the middle of the side...perhaps with the end hidden from view by a tree or two, so viewers from the yard can't see the end of the interchange track (and neither can viewers working the Sunrise Siding!).

    I prefer the crossovers of Tweaked #12 to those of Revision 12...but would encourage you to slide them just a little farther into the curves so moving from the inner to the outer loop goes through the straight part of the turnouts, and going through the curved part of the inner loop turnouts keeps the train on the inner loop. This way there would be no S-curves.
     
  8. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Revision 13

    Okay, I know I said there would be no 13 but I need to keep things in order. I wanted to post this before I head out the door for work. Thanks again Dave for your insight. Here's #13:

    [​IMG]

    Comments, suggestions?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2008
  9. Another ATSF Admirer

    Another ATSF Admirer TrainBoard Member

    849
    56
    21
    looking good

    I quite like number 13, it's got most of the bits I think it should have and it looks quite workable.
    For some reason I keep seeing the trains pulling off the yellow AD track to the right and circling counter-clockwise. I forced myself to trace the path the other way around the loop and it still works; so I assume it's just my own asymmetrical brain torturing me.

    The only comment I would make are the cross-overs just above the AD track - coming from the inner loop to the outer track has S-curves each time; whereas if you pull the points into the end of the curve (straight leg outwards), you keep the flow of the curve and eliminate the esses (S's? Ess's? yay, english.)

    I've taken the liberty of doodling on your plan to show this:
    [​IMG]

    Looking at my drawing and the space, it looks feasible from my armchair :)
     
  10. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have moved the TO's above the A-D track and eliminated the S curves and everything still seems to fit. The only thing I can think of that is missing is a caboose track and am not sure where I could fit it in.

    [​IMG]

    The only real concern I have at this point is if I have enough space in some areas for my supply of manual turnouts. I'll cross that bridge as track laying commences.

    Again, thanks to all for the suggestions and comments.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2008
  11. Another ATSF Admirer

    Another ATSF Admirer TrainBoard Member

    849
    56
    21
    Unless you hung it off the RIP track, I can't see anywhere to store cabeese either.
    At any rate, you'd risk making the yard a little too "busy" if you added any more track :)

    Typing of space around turnouts, some of the cluster between the AD, the main and the yard lead may get a little crowded with actual track laying - consider printing a 1:1 of that area, or using actual turnouts and doing 'test fits' just to make sure it works as well on the layout as it does on the screen / paper, for fitting together and leaving enough space around points so that everything works (physically) as well as "works" (aesthetically).

    If you fiddle with it all a bit before starting any serious track laying, you should be able to convince yourself it will all work or make it work; and it's something you can do before you start to save yourself any issues half-way in to it ;)

    Not sure any of that actually makes sense...
     
  12. Zandoz

    Zandoz TrainBoard Member

    248
    1
    13
    I like it....a lot. Makes me want to scrap my plan, but with the 15" minimum radius I impsed on myself for the passenger cars, it just wouldn't fit in my space.
     
  13. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    1. Track for cabeese is definitely out.
    2. I looked at the plan on screen at a 1:1 ratio and there doesn't seem to be much of a problem.
    3. I did re-draw the plan and replace the #5 TO's with 7's and there seems to be a little bit more room in between the TO's on the right that compose the yard lead, A-D and main. Disadvantage: I lost a little length on the 2 yard tracks at the bottom front. It's not like I'm going to be storing a 100 cars or so. Advantage: I only have to buy 2 more #7's as opposed to having to buy 16 #5's and I have #7's handy to test fit before the final outcome. This outweighs the disadvantage by a long, long shot.

    So here is Revision 13.2 which will probably be the final:

    [​IMG]

    This has seemed exhausting but fun and have learned a lot more along the way. Thanks again to everyone. If I can get my brother's computer viruses cleaned up today, then I'll try to find some time and see if I can locate a bargain door.:tb-biggrin:
     
  14. Mark Smith

    Mark Smith TrainBoard Member

    306
    9
    18
    Since you have a little extra straight track between the A/D track switch and the yard switches, I'd suggest taking some of it and putting it between the two yard switches to provide a little more finger room between the tracks in case you want to take cars on and off th layout there.

    Looks like the layout will run smoothly and provide lots of operating opportunity. Good job!
     
  15. Another ATSF Admirer

    Another ATSF Admirer TrainBoard Member

    849
    56
    21
    The word 'final' doesn't belong with model railroads - there's always something to tweak, something to change :)
    Now would be a good chance to start looking at scenes and trying to visualise three dimensions around the layout to see how it fits - is it prairie flat? or are there some rolling lands above and below the tracks somewhere? Obviously the industries have flattened their buildings foundations and carparks, but the rest is going to vary at least a little - the real world ain't flat!

    Just saying it's worth thinking about it a bit - most scenery you can do after the tracks are down, but some has to be planned for in advance. ;)

    Looking good!
     
  16. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Thanks Mark, I did do just that. I also changed the TO leading to the engine house from a right to a left which brings the engine house up away from the front edge with some room to spare.

    Yeah, nothing is final with layout planning and construction. I've been visualizing various things as I was designing and nothing is set but I do have some things in mind and plan to draw them out on paper and do mock ups before track laying.
     
  17. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Revision 13.3

    Looking at the plan I realized I hadn't really lost any length on the 2 yard tracks in the front. Looks like I have room for another track in front by adding another TO on the engine house track.

    I thought it might be nice to put a comparison at this point of the thread. What started out as this:

    [​IMG]

    has evolved to this:

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Phil Olmsted

    Phil Olmsted TrainBoard Member

    317
    1
    14
    Thanks for the "before and after". This is a great example of why I really like TB. Lots of good information without rancor.
     
  19. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    Charles:
    This most recent configuration of the yard has some significant difficulties which will make working the yard incredibly frustrating...if it can be done at all.

    As I mentioned before, you have switched the two turnouts from the main to the right end of the yard in such a way that you will have to go onto the main every time you clear your Arrival/Departure track. This change could still work if the other 2 tracks are in a ladder after the A-D track: You could pull from the A-D track over the main and onto the yard lead, then push back across the main and directly into either yard track. This is probably do-able, but seems to be a very un-prototypic arrangement.

    The present adjustments to provide a RIP track introduce difficulties that...in my opinion...will reduce your yard capacity significantly and will make using the engine shed and RIP track very inconvenient. Even if you are going to use the same loco to clear the A-D track that pulled the train around the layout, you will still need to leave enough room for the engine to make the switchback movement into the engine shed at the end of switching, so you will only have 2 feet on your 2nd track...about enough room for 5 cars, or 6 if they are short.

    A caboose will need to be left on the A-D track unless you want to leave enough room on the 2nd track to work 2 switchback movements so you can put it on the 3rd track (at the front of the layout). Such a move will require you to almost pull into the engine shed.

    As an alternative, put the main to A-D track turnouts back to the way they were in Revision 12, so the yard lead is NOT part of the main. Put your RIP track AND your engine shed as tracks that are accessed from the yard lead rather than from the 2nd yard track. If the RIP track is long enough, you could use the end closest to the yard lead for caboose storage. This will have several advantages:
    1. The counter clockwise running roadswitcher will be able to pull from the A-D track onto the yard lead and then back itself into the engine shed. The clockwise running roadswitcher will need to run around on the main, pull back onto the A-D track, then pull onto the yard lead and back into the engine shed (about as many moves as your most recent plan would require).
    2. It would be possible for the roadswitcher engineer to pull his own caboose, park the caboose on the front end of the RIP track, then park the loco in the engine shed.
    3. The yard switcher could park at the far end of the yard lead, or in either of the yard tracks while the roadswitcher headed to the engine shed.
    4. All of the classification track length would be available for rolling stock, instead of having to reserve some of the space for switchback movements.
    5. Cars going to the RIP track would be spotted just as easily as spotting cars on the yard tracks since the turnout would have facing points, just like the yard ladder tracks, so no run around or switchback would be needed.
    6. If the engine shed is positioned at a 15 degree angle to the right side of the layout, then the RIP/caboose track could nestle in parallel to the yard ladder between the yard ladder turnouts and the engine shed.

    Depending on how much space you have, you could put fuel and sanding facilities against the right side of the layout...maybe modeled in half profile or with very thin building flats so you have enough room for track. Put relatively dense trees between the yard lead and the main track as a viewblock to hide the yard lead from operators standing on the other side of the layout, and thus preserve the illusion that the trains are disappearing from sight because of how far they have travelled.

    Plink, Plink...my $0.02.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2008
  20. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Revision 14

    Okay, I must confess I am at a point where there has been so many revisions that things are seemingly muddled for me. I have gone back and read and re-read all the posts trying to make this thing work.

    The main driving force is to use existing track and TO's (which are Code 55 #7's) and it has been difficult to get things lined up just right. Posted below is what I have so far with Revision 14 and am having difficulty of deciding how to fit in the engine house. If I have to forget about a RIP track, that's fine. The only way I can see fitting in the engine house is to come off the lower track in front of the layout. Am I off base? I guess what I'm asking for is a little more help and clear up my confusion and if I have any further issues with this revision.

    [​IMG]

    I know some of you have put some time into this and for that I have been grateful. Any help from this point forward will be greatly appreciated.
     

Share This Page