Atlas N-501 Trackplan

poppy2201 Jan 5, 2008

  1. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Here's what I did with Rev. 14.1:

    [​IMG]

    and Rev. 14.2 (added another track at bottom front):

    [​IMG]

    Thoughts?
     
  2. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    Charles:
    Well done. I really like how you've set up the yard lead and arrival departure tracks in 14.1 and 14.2. Is there enough room to put a right hand turnout in the middle of the red yard lead? If so, then perhaps you could position it so that the straight portion is parallel with the right edge of the layout and the curved portion fits directly on top of the curved part of the yard lead. The straight part of the turnout would connect to another right hand turnout. The curved portion of the 2nd turnout would lead to a track than runs parallel to the turnouts that form the yard and would have your RIP track at the bottom end and a place for parking the caboose on the same track but closer to the turnout. The straight part of the 2nd turnout would connect to a 3rd right hand turnout. The 3rd RH turnout would provide the 2 tracks that go into the engine house which could be at a slight angle or else parallel with the right side of the layout.
     
  3. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Dave: Thanks! I like your thought and have played around with it. Things seem just too tight on paper and based on past experience, I think that it would be too tight in real life. I'm going to go with Plan 14.2 and as I start laying track I may come back to your idea and explore it.

    For those who do not want to read through all of the previous posts here is the comparison again.

    What started out as this...

    [​IMG]

    ...has evolved to this:

    [​IMG]

    Thanks again everyone!
     
  4. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    I think you're going to have a lot of fun with this plan. Will you be jumping into construction relatively soon...maybe as part of the Spring Layout Party?
     
  5. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Thanks Dave. That's my plan. I'm going to shop for a door today, finish dismantling my modules and storing them away. I have taken up the track and sometime this weekend I'll sit down to make out my list of things to accomplish and then I'll post to the thread.

    As a sort of funny side note, I took inventory of my track and TO's and ordered the remaining TO's last week. I discovered after they shipped I apparently had a case of dyslexia and reversed the quantities on my order. Now I have to order 2 more #7 rights. That's okay as it probably never hurts to have a spare or two and anyway I wanted to order some flex track.

    See ya at the Spring Layout Party!
     
  6. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    It's been fascinating, as I've followed this evolving plan. Congratulations on getting all the details desired, and more, worked in. :thumbs_up:

    Boxcab E50
     
  7. Harron

    Harron TrainBoard Supporter

    1,061
    0
    31
    Just a few thoughts about your layout. Not discounting any of the advice given since it is all sound advice, but one thing you need to consider is this: What do you intend to do operationally with your layout? How many operators/trains at once? Some of these ideas, though prototypical, are wasted on a single-operator layout. A lot of the better trackplanners on this board (several of whom contributed to this thread) think in terms of the prototype and multi-operator layouts. I'm guilty of that a lot too, because that's how I like to build and operate my layouts. But sometimes it's important to step back and make sure the person we're helping WANTS that.

    Yard lead and arrival/departure and engine escape: Not all yards have leads, only if you want to actually operate a mainline train at the same time you want to switch the yard do you need a lead. Sure it may not be prototypical (though it is in some cases) but do you need it? Also, you can have every train shove into the yard, which would allow you to get away with not having an arrival/departure track or escape need for your engines. Some yards have to be shoved into pretty regularly.

    Runarounds: The layout original layout was small enough that you can shove cars for a bit with the short runaround above the yard - it doesn't necessarily have to be right next to the industry. Again this is your preference with what you want to do with the layout operationally.

    The design you've decided on is very sound and provides a LOT of operating potential. You could very comfortably have up to 3 operators working - for example something like a yard job, mainline through-freight, and local - and perhaps even add one more. That's a lot of action on a door (one of the benefits of N scale). I'm sure you'll get a lot of enjoyment out of it.
     
  8. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    Thanks for your comments and I must say they are valid. My intention was to become more operationally inclined with this layout as opposed to previous layouts. In addition, I am hoping to get the grandkids involved when they arrive and maybe cultivate a couple of future N Scalers.

    I have also been thinking about scenery and roadways etc. So far this is what I am visualizing to add some interest to the layout. With all of the double tracks, I wanted to eliminate as many grade crossings as possible and this is what I am thinking of:

    [​IMG]
     
  9. friscobob

    friscobob Staff Member

    10,534
    707
    129
    The more I look at that yard lead, the more I see a second interchange track........hey, why NOT swap cars with 2 different railroads?
     
  10. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    I guess the future could hold that. My plans are maybe to simulate operating BNSF through Oklahoma City and the short line being SLWC. I just have to find some old, beat up ex-CN GP40's for the SLWC. What do you think?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2008
  11. friscobob

    friscobob Staff Member

    10,534
    707
    129
    Well, if the Heart of Georgia RR and Georgia-Florida RR can use ex-CN GP40s.........why not? :D

    (Of course, I'm not aware of what SLWC has for motive power)
     
  12. theskunk

    theskunk TrainBoard Member

    421
    0
    18
    Just curious, but whats the status of this layout?! was there a build thread started that i missed?
     
  13. Grey One

    Grey One TrainBoard Supporter

    8,903
    3,622
    137
    Very impressive Poppy and everyone! I really enjoyed following the evolution. This is a classic design and should be published.

    It also solved a problem for me. I wanted a longer yard for my passenger trains but just could not find space. There is is in the most obvious space right up front. You have my sincere gratitude.

    Good luck with your layout and we look forward to the building.
     
  14. nickf

    nickf New Member

    8
    0
    8
    Hello all,

    Renewing my participation in the hobby. Looking to build an interesting layout for/with my boys. This layout looks like tons of fun. But, I would think that this is a lot of track for a door-sized layout. It looks VERY 'busy'. I'm having difficulty visualizing the final product. Can anyone comment as to whether this layout might be a little much for a small layout?

    Thanks very much!

    Nick Fields
     
  15. theskunk

    theskunk TrainBoard Member

    421
    0
    18
    Hi Nick and welcome!

    This is a GREAT plan for the space, but if you think its too much for you, then it may be -- it is YOUR railroad, after all!

    One of the most common sites we go to to pull ideas from is here:

    http://www.cke1st.com/m_train2.htm

    What size layout are you going to be building? If you'll let us know that we will be more than happy to point you into the right direction :)
     
  16. nickf

    nickf New Member

    8
    0
    8
    Skunk,

    Thanks so much for the quick reply. I'm not as concerned about attempting that layout as much as I'm concerned about it just being visually too much in a small space.

    However, I checked the link you provided and my boys fell in love with another plan on there that's even busier. I believe I'll start a new thread to throw it open for discussion.

    Thanks again!

    Nick
     
  17. RatonMan

    RatonMan TrainBoard Member

    532
    1
    24
    It would be interesting to see if this layout was ever built/finished.
     
  18. theskunk

    theskunk TrainBoard Member

    421
    0
    18
    For all those who are interested, I'm going to look into (very seriously) doing this plan. I do have a few concessions I will be forced to make --

    1) Kato Unitrack (for now).

    2) 30x72 is my size. Anybody have any input on how to shrink this down? It's possible I could move the yard off to the size in a 48x12 board, but I would recommend not counting on that for now.

    3) My local will be more focused on mixed freight, including limited coal, say, end of life Conrail-ish, but I want it to be convertable to Southern as well.

    4) Mostly single operator, 2x at the most. I like long trains, but obviously on this layout, 8 cars is probably the longest I'd want to run.

    I'm fully open to suggestions as I havent really designed anything in a while.

    -Rob
     
  19. LocoHorn

    LocoHorn TrainBoard Member

    107
    66
    18
    Any progress on this layout?
     
  20. poppy2201

    poppy2201 TrainBoard Member

    716
    186
    24
    I personally never got around to building the original plan although I still think it would be fun. Different things happened over course of time and when I did get back to starting a HCD layout, I worked out a different plan using Kato Unitrack.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2009

Share This Page