Mozarelli, Just saw this thread, your getting great advice from everyone, so I will just follow along. Being a T&P fan myself and modeling the T&P Bonham Division, I will enjoy watching your progress.
Yes, that was me, and the move to eliminate grades is a wise one for a beginner; it's one less headache to worry about. A team track is a different thing from what you're referring to; a team track is just a siding that often has just a loading ramp, and nothing more. It gets its name from how it was used in the early days of railroading, when teams of horses would draw wagons up next to the track, and railroad cars were unloaded onto the wagons. The track beside the warehouse is called a siding. I'm not quite sure why the warehouse would be 6" tall; warehouses are usually (but not always) lower buildings. Do you have any reference images of the building in question? I think that just pulling the structure a little further away from the mainline will help with access; that said, another big help is this: Since you are willing to trim the edges back after all, then I would strongly recommend doing so, especially removing the bulge along the long side of the layout, and also widening the angled aisle in the corner. This would solve a multitude of access problems, and may take care of the warehouse issue. This is the sort of thing that takes practice. One way to ensure you've got smooth curves that don't violate the minimum radius setting is to let the software make the curves for you. Drag a piece of flex onto the workspace, right-click on the flex, and select Curved flex. This will provide a dialog box where you enter the angle (anything up to a maximum of 90 degrees) and the radius. You can also create perfectly straight sections the same way--right-click and select Straight flex, and enter the length. One other trick, when tweaking the control points on the ends of flex sections, is to hold the Shift key down to avoid twisting the end of the flex off-angle. As I said, it takes practice; the more you do it, the better you'll get. With a double-track mainline, the running direction is actually both CW and CCW. Although the yard has a natural direction which sends trains off to the left (CW), if you'll note the yard is connected to the main at both ends, with a runaround in between, so you can make up a train that faces the other direction. The shortcoming of the plan I'd posted previously is that a train leaving the yard to the right (CCW) would be running "left-handed", that is it would be like driving your car down the left side of a road. I've tweaked the plan a bit to make it easier to get trains onto the correct mainline track by using a crossing. It's a bit unusual, but it helps with the flow of your trains. One final note, since you now have crossings on the mainline, you will not be able to run two trains unattended, because at some point you will have a collision. Not much you can do about it, except to either a) make grades so one line is elevated, or b) redesign the plan to eliminate the crossings.
I am thinking there is enough track in the loop at the lower left to elevate two inches at just over 2% grade and thus eliminate the crossings. Someone (just can't think of who) puts out an elevation kit that would make it not too painful for someone new to the building layouts
That would be Woodland Scenics. Unfortunately it would take a grade of 2.3% to gain enough height in the loop; the WS grade kits come in 2% and 4%, IIRC.
No, don't eliminate the crossings....that's prototypical and would make this layout very much "Fort Worth". Funny, I had sketched up something very similar but didn't get time to scan or put into CAD. I love it. The only thing I was trying to do differently was fit the Trinity river bridge in that is located just outside the yard. But I wouldn't lose sleep over it. One thing I would do is put a RH turnout just off the crossing to access inside the "loop" where that Merchants Row structure is placed. I would have stockyards in the middle there, and then have the meat packing plants as a flat behind that on the backdrop. That gives you "cowtown" in mostly the right spot since that leg of the interlocking would be due North "ATSF" heading to the stockyards. Again, absolutely gives you the look and feel. This would be a fantastic layout as designed, I think.
Where no train has gone before Well, this evolution was radical .... but we really need to ask some questions about the original operational intent, before doing redesign. Mozarelli - did you want double-track mains? Or two loops that looked like double-track in some parts but were separate lines? I assume you originally wanted 2 trains to run by themselves without any conflicts. Lots of us just love watching trains run. Did you need an actual crossing at Tower 55, or one with dummy tracks and working interchange tracks? How important was a hidden siding-- for staging a train? The problem with this latest design is long trains may come looping back on themselves at the T55 crossing just after their tail passes (or blocks itself) there. And I'm wondering in the latest version where the yard lead(s) are? If you originally wanted to let trains run unattended while you switched the yard this version doesn't let you do that. In fact I wonder why the yard wound up in the middle of the layout instead of at the front edge -- where the Merchants Row and Clarkville Station are now. By putting the yard up front you'd have much better access, the mainline trains would run by behind the yard not getting in your way while switching, you could make a pretty decent diamond-shape yard, plus use that extra shelf at the front to fan out a short stub-ended yard ... because believe me, you'll want as much space as you can get to store rolling stock on your layout (as us veterans know). As the "bible of model railroad design" says, the yard should be located along the longest accessible straight part of the benchwork. The turntable/roundhouse would then be relocated to the RH lower corner at the right side of the plan -- moving the double-track curve there to the left could accomplish this. This move opens up the scenery where it was to look like something other than all railroad-related. With the turntable right in the front corner it would be a great showcase for turning engines and setting them out at the 'house. This move would also bring your biggest area of wiring projects close to the front edge of the layout, to get at easier. With the yard moved off that part, the line there can be moved a little closer forward and the T&P complex moved a few inches closer to the front of the layout -- yes, you WILL appreciate the shorter reach someday. Fill in the space where it was with a downtown area, tall buildings, commercial center, whatever -- stuff that looks good but you don't have to rerail or rewire way back there. Finally (for some reason this post won't let me start new paragraphs), why not build this version with temporary track? You don't have any grades so it wouldn't be hard to tack down track (or use sectional) to make it. Yes, you'd have to run feeders here and there but if you set up a test version of a layout you'd get hands-on experience and a better idea of what works or not -- BEFORE you commit tons of time effort and money to something permanent that you may be disappointed in. When I started out in N scale I used sectional track for years designing and running layouts that were easy to change and experiment with until I was pretty sure about what kind of permanent layout I wanted. Nowadays with Unitrack it's easier than ever to do. And when you are ready to move on to flex track and hand-laid turnouts you'll find there are plenty of eBAy people willing to buy your used Unitrack .
Yard lead is identified in the latest plan, just below the enginehouse. Trains would be relatively short; the runaround in front of the yard dictates the longest possible train, which would not create a conflict at the crossing. However, the crossing does prevent running two trains unattended, and this was pointed out in the post with the plan. The turntable and yard throat are only 8-12 inches from the front edge of the layout; the furthest yard track is about 18 inches away. I would not consider these to be hard to reach. Putting the yard along the front edge would force it to be shorter, because you still need the return loop to the right, which would now be more acute because the line must swing from the center of the layout forward. If maximum storage space is the goal, your suggestion will reduce it considerably. By contrast, the yard in the current plan can be enlarged quite a bit since there's still a foot and a half to the right where it can be extended. Also, the TT could be moved to the right end of the yard, but still inside the loop, and be quite close to the front edge of the benchwork. I'm not seeing how you envision this at all. With the yard up front, you still need a full return loop, which must reach the front edge of the benchwork in order to remain a decent radius. If the TT is in the lower right corner, and the return loop to the left of it, how would you connect the TT to the yard with the return loop in the way? Not to mention that moving the loop to the left nearly two feet to make room for the TT shortens the mainline run considerably. May as well just make a circle... You might try sketching this out and posting the drawing, because I don't see this being workable as described. Now, if it were me, given the same elements required for the same space, this is what I might do:
Hi gentlemen, IMHO a few posters do have very strong opinions. Like having a radius as big as possible, sometimes one just an inch smaller could create space for a yardlead. Usually there is always a drawback, the OP is the one to make the final decisions. The very same applies for the kind of equipment and trainlength. Looking at David K Smith's design the emphasis is on one big scene (versus several smaller ones) and on keeping the plan as simple as possible (no grades, no staging, no reversing loops, no tracks underground). My local hobby shop dealer once told me the most made mistake by him was misjudging his clients. By over or under estimating their abilities (not every one is really honest about it) he has lost quite some business. I usually do like David's plans a lot, though the grand crossing while being prototypically visually, operationally it is not. All trains looping back over the same crossing just a few seconds later after their first appearance would be an issue i would try to address. Just to present the OP an alternative with underground staging I have drawn the following. Trainlength is about 5 feet. When the OP does not fear the saw and is willing to accept some grades he could start by building the main (as drawn or completely double tracked) with the staging tracks included. Later the yard and the western branch, the other route through the grand crossing, could be built as phase 2 and 3. Of course some minor changes are needed when the plan has to be done for Kato unitrack. Smile Paul
Paul, a couple of observations. First, the locomotives must see-saw back and forth on the mainline to get to the yard. Pushing the staging tracks up against the back corner, and running hidden track directly below the branchline track, would seem to create some serious access issues. I'm also trying to figure out what you're doing with the mainline directly below the turntable; it looks like a whole cluster of crossovers, and I'm not comprehending the purpose of that knot of track. Mozarelli has indicated he is a beginner, so I have tried to keep the plans more straightforward, although I have presented three different plans that vary in the level of challenge (of which my favorite is the first one, and my least favorite is the one with the crossing). Also, I work from his designs as much as practical in order to preserve those features he wants. For example, I'm not at all fond of the crossing, but I included it anyway because it was on his own plan, and while you or I might not care to see a train virtually chase its tail round the bend, it might be perfectly fine by him.
I think the size and shape of the layout present a challenge any way you go. There's just barely enough room to do a folded loop, which I think is generally preferred simply because it allows for a little wider and smoother flowing curves. But, then you face a decision of crossing at grade, or introducing a significant grade to loop the track over itself. To complicate matters are the two huge structures that are signature to setting the scene, yet don't necessarily "fit" given the flow of the layout. I contend that, could the space be mirrored with the downward leg to the right, it would be a much more natural fit to place the structures prototypically *behind* the station tracks. I will admit that knowing what I know about the prototype has biased me and probably makes me a poison to the process overall. While I would attempt to give the customer what they want, at the end of the day they ARE asking for an opinion and experience/expertise. So...making a simpler layout initially cannot be considered a bad decision in this instance, I don't think. If there was a little more room on the downward facing leg of the layout (even a foot) it would allow for a little more run for either scenario. In this case--with the layout depicting a major at-grade interchange and the builder being somewhat novice--I think the design has merit even given what would traditionally/in most case be considered a pretty trainset-style design element. Throwing in an overpass and other natural scenic dividers can mask the "pure loop" aspect. About the only downside I would see at that point is the inability to run two "looper" trains, as was mentioned. But, you can't have everything.
Hi David, two crossovers are needed between the two mainlines. However between the yard and the main are two more crossovers. One connects the arrival and departure track with the yardlead, the other makes it possible to leave the yard directly, bypassing the departure track. Paul
Here are some images of the T & P Warehouse and the T & P Station. Both are quite large and, although the Station is a few stories taller, you can see that the Warehouse is a good 100 ft. tall. I believe the Station is about 130 ft. which, if my math is correct, would make a scale structure almost 10 in. tall! I have always been willing to cut, I just can't easily cut to less than 3 feet (except the little step-in area which can expand from 17" width to 27" if I cut it all the way back to the underlying supports.) Someone mentioned that Tower 55 was an important item in the Fort Worth area and, after reading a little about it, I thought I would include it on the layout. Any thoughts as to whether being prototypical trumps ease of operation? Thanks, Mozarelli
I was planning on having the Trinity River (if u can call it a river!) on the layout somewhere. Perhaps this is an opportunity.
Hi Backshop. Lot's of questions, so here's a stab at answers: My original design had two loops that looked like double track, but were separate lines. I don't have a strong preference wither way. My thought was that I could enjoy the trains running while I worked on structure models, train repairs, landscape features, etc. I've read that having a lengthy siding can be valuable and that some people hide (or partially hide) them to simulate the train leaving the area and returning. This seemed like a way to do both without too much trouble, but as many have pointed out (including you), I shouldn't have trains so far out of reach - despite my 4.5 foot arms! BTW, the plan is for this layout to be in existence for less than 10 years and, at my current pace, I might have it "completed" just before we tear it down and move. The idea of spending time and money on temporary/sectional track does not appeal to me. I don't like the look of it and wiring sounds like a PITA. I also don't think I can create the same curves and shapes with sectional track. I might put down some track, though, just as a test. Will I be able to straighten the flex track when I'm done?
Hi Paul, I originally had 4-5 smaller scenes imagined for the layout. I think I can still have at least 3 different scenes, anyway. If David K Smith is underestimating my capabilities, I will compensate by adding my own embellishments and changes as I build whatever we end up with. As someone else stated, it's ultimately my choice as I'm the one who will build it. This will definitely continue to be a phased project. It has taken 6 months just to get the room cleaned and painted, the benchwork supports ordered, assembled, and modified, and the table tops and backdrops designed and installed. I'm hoping to have basic track down and trains running in 3-6 months, but the whole layout being "completed" will be a few years.
The gentlemen above are right about it all..you'de be better off heeding what they are saying...My imput is this: Newbees seem to always want a 'continual' type layout instead of point to point the way RRs really run..Light rail, subways, trollies, trams do go around cities and usuall form a loop of some kind..But main line RRs do not...Yes, they might twist and turn and might go up and over themselves ( more of a model RR device to gain length), but they basically go from one end of the line to the other where locos are turned around on the turntable or wye and entire trains sometimes turned on a wye or a loop called a balloon track..I and I'd guess most of us had a continual, round and around train layout starting out...After a while the circular idea gets tired or boring, same train or two going in circles..I do not mean to be mean...you can have a point to point MRR where you have duties and activities to get your equipment serviced and turned around to head back..The extra 'work' to do this, for me anyway is rewarding in that I am performing more realistic operations getting trains where they need to get to/from...Also, you need a trackage area which represents a connection to the rest of the country; the other RRs, via an 'interchange' to pass cars to or from/inbound-outbound..Or else, how could your system exist, commerce-wise, if it is isolated .. Just being forthright, not judgemental..I am certainly not the best at all this, MRRs/ real RRs, but I am trying.... Mark
Seems like a cool project. Here's some Texas and Pacific equipment to spur you on. I believe the Geep was owned by Ben Perlman - not sure who did the paint, but it's one of my favorite locos. Mike
Hi Doug, You may have missed one of my earlier posts which showed a door immediately adjacent to the lower right corner of the layout. Beyond that door is CFO space where, I'm told, there be dragons. Below is an early rought draft of the layout shown in situ: Thanks, Mozarelli
I may have to compress the upper left corner some because my cutout (step-in area) is deeper than what you have pictured here. That might tighten up the curves a bit.
