It is an unusual arrangement since it's hard to see how a railroad would ever do this. You have a yard, then a siding coming from a long way away right next to the yard. Why not just run a second siding down in the lower left either paralleling the one you have or pointing slightly away from it? Or turn that long siding some more and keep it away from the yard.
Thanks Mark. I just added a second spur for another industry over there. Now that I have the track plan decided and glued down, I'll be starting my scenery on it. So, while I am working on scenery and ideas for industry, etc. I will continue to toy around with my expansion plans. I came up with the following, however I would rather not take up the 28"X28" turnaround loop off to the left. What if it was just a point to point with a runaround track to get the locos back on the 'front' of the train for the return trip. I know that's probably the most prototypical isn't it?
Many branchlines ended without a loop, but did need a provision for turning an engine. In steam days this could mean a small manually-operated turntable. If there was enought room, a wye would be the easier solution. The trouble with a run around is that it puts the cab of the loco (even a diesel) facing the wrong way. Some railroads operating in the 40's, 50's, and 60's didn't worry about that. They ran short or long hood forward. More modern roads have one way forward so have to turn their engines. Another solution for a modern road is to run push-pull. Put a diesel at both ends headed in opposite directions. Very often used in shortline and other operations today where engines can't be turned. Also lets a train work both trailing and facing spurs without a run-around track. The wye would take up almost as much space as the loop. Double ending takes no more space.
Thanks Mark, So you think it's best the way it is now? I can get away with that return loop, was just thinking of other space saving ideas.
I have read most of the replies here... I think trying to keep to 24" width is really tricky. Going to 30" helps if not 36". 48" length is good, 54" or 60" would be better if you can afford it. I have a fun little 2x3' layout with 4 turnouts good for switching... A couple of suggestions for a small N scale layout. Run a divider background down the middle of the length of the layout to divide it into two scenes. Each scene will be shallow requiring special planning to use reduced depth scenes going into painted or photo-pasteup or computer generated backgrounds that make each view look like part of a BIG scene. Another suggestion. Use an END CURVE as location for a double-ended track that can serve as passing siding, runaround track and/or visible staging (place to store one train while other runs). Adding one or two stub end tracks alongside this end passing siding makes it several tracks wide resembling a yard somewhat. 3 or 4 tracks 3 feet along around a curve look more like a yard than 2 tracks a foot and half long with 5 cars each in the middle of your layout. "Port Sunnyside Plan": port + military base 28” x 48” Click to enlarge. Sorry, no room to model an ocean-ocean ship in 3D on this small a layout, but it can be painted or photo-pasted almost full scale on the backgrounnd, appearing behind and above the cargo sheds. Army base would need half-depth buildings against backdrop to make size appear larger. Big portside grain elevator could be specially arranged to hide end of the backdrop. "Prarieville Corners Plan" 3x4pike, small town & farm field Highway overpass partly hides tail of yard/storage tracks. Train parked on double-ended staging can look as if it is simply waiting on passing siding for clearance to proceed. Local switching in the two. Even a little bit of yard switching, so consist of local peddler freight can change. This layout can accomodate a short local peddler switch freight, plus an additional train which would be a passenger train, a through general freight, a refrigerated train, stock train or coal train. Do these layouts have enough scenery for their size? A link to some of the scenery on my 2x3' layout: http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/548/ScratchLTA.JPG
The loop gives you continuous running capability. The other options are out and back. If you think you'd like to just watch the trains run around the whole layout I'd stick with it. Otherwise you can double head or run the engine 'backward' after running around the train. Don't become a slave to the layout. It's yours to design and run. Kenneth has some nice options for a small layout, but you do have to have access to all sides of the layout for a scene divider to be effective. If you can pull the layout from the wall and walk around it, it is something you should think about. I know you were planning to start with the small board and then expand with the extra narrow shelf and the loop. But if you are thinking about doing all this right away, why not redesign the entire space? The oval on the small board can give way to another return loop and you can either regain some room space or gain some yard and switching space.
No, I'm definately not doing the expansion all right away. I have the small board built and track glued down. The long shelf expansion will wait until I build a new house (first, this one has to sell). So I want to keep this small layout like it is until then. I have mounted legs on it last night and it sits behind my bar. (kinda out of sight for prospective buyers) It's probably going to be a year or so before I am ready to begin the expansion. So, I should probably begin focusing on naming my layout, get a little more involved in scenery ideas.
Looks really good. Um, can you post a pic of the final arangement sans expansion? Thanks Oh, and if possible maybe one calling out the various Unitrak pieces.
Here is the final plan of Southern Pacific's (fictional) Traydon subdivision. (Hey, I finally came up with a name!) I'll edit the description of the photo in my railimages album and call out all the Unitrack pieces there.
Argh! Too difficult to add the description like that, so here it is with the labels displayed. Traydon is a name I came up with that is part of my two sons names and my own together. (Trystan, Grayson, Sheldon) What do you mean the restraint I have?
I think the last plan will give you just enough operations to keep you interested. It's cool to see everyone else struggles with the same stuff I do when they try and get things going. Don't be afraid to deviate slightly from your plan if you get a flash of inspiration or something once you start building. The only drawback I see is that both sets of sidings are only accessable from the same direction. If you're gonna run two trains (one in each direction) that's the only flaw I see. Good luck.
2x4 just doesn't leave much for anything. I have found the width dimension to be the most restricting of them. If you are doing a four foot length, could you consider going to 2.5 x4 or even 3 x 4. You'll be amazed by what you can get away with in that space. I like your last plan, but it is so close to the edges of the layout board. Eventually you're going to get a leaper climbing off the tracks and onto the floor. Sad day if you've lived through one of those. I almost lost my train master that way last year. One of my old layouts was 2x4. I eventually discovered that the 2x4 footprint was way too limiting and abandoned it. I liked the plan so much I ended up using it as the basic design for my new layout that I have built on a door panel.
To prevent leapers, build a wooden frame around it high enough for it to extend a bit over the layout. This is a 3' x 5.5' "portable" layout but the same principle can be applied to a 2' x 4'.
