[howaboutme]

Edit:

This thread was originally going to just be about my layout but it'll now transition into a build thread.
Jump to:

• Building the base: Page 8
• Pre-track laying adjustments to turnout locations: here

Thanks for all of the initial comments and suggestions from my "welcome" post here. I've already learned a lot.

I'm finally ready to present my draft layout for review, comment, criticism, etc. It's roughly 30x56. I will use 1x6's as the edges and I've already accounted for them in the layout. I've also raised the base a few inches to accommodate the river and viaduct going over it.

I don't have a theme and I'm not sure I want to be limited by a specific theme as that may put too much pressure on me to get it period correct. To scratch my itch, I'm looking for a series of things in my layout suchs as:

• Running at least 2 trains at once.
• Ability to run another locomotive for switching operations
• Both cargo and passenger
• Elevation changes
• Multiple industries

My first criticism about my design is that it's just "too much". There's a lot packed into a small space. I also have some tight curves. I've been looking at locomotives and almost all of the diesels suggest optimum radius at ~11". I go down to 9" or so on my main lines with some tighter at the spurs. Another thing I wasn't happy about is that the inner loop doesn't have a siding other than the X track at the bottom to make that line more realistic. I'd also love another "cargo" yard and can replace the industries with that. Lastly, 9 turnouts plus an X track is going to cost me a pretty penny and call for a lot of wiring. Lastly, I did need a piece of flex track to complete the outer loop (left side).

I look forward to your thoughts!

 

[kenn]

I really like this layout a lot and mirrors what I think I want to accomplish in my first setup. My goals are essentially the same. I want to run a cargo with two industries that I can do some switching as well as have a passenger (a big boy, lol) running at the same time. The radii are the issue for me as well since the big boys like big curves. If I want to run a smaller steam, I'll have to do more research to find a "modern day" passenger line that is using a mikado or similar smaller wheelbase so I can do the smaller curves and still have a layout that resembles reality. I decided ultimately to just put a layout on a 36x80 door (good bit bigger than yours, obviously) and try a few layouts until I find something that works for me until I start gluing things down, carving tunnels, etc. Given this will likely be a multi-year project once I truly decide on a plan, I don't want to be halfway in and decide I dislike the layout or want something completely different. My initial layout uses about twice as many turnouts, lol. Yeah. Ouch. $$$.

Just out of curiosity is this going to model some place specific, an era, or just fantasy? Any particular locos you are fond of?

 

[JeffHurl]

That's a really good design that does allow a train on each of the main loops and a third switcher in the yard, and it checks the boxes of your want list.

I have 2 suggestions:

First is the spur that serves industry 2. That looks like a really sharp curve, and you will be backing cars into that spur. In my experience, backing through a curve is harder on sharp curves than pulling cars through the same curve. Perhaps move the structure to the East side of the track, and have the spur be able to go a little more straight and go to the West side of the building.

Second is the spur that serves industry 3. You should try to avoid S curves. The one there isn't all that drastic, but you could avoid it by alligning the mainline with the spur a bit more.

Something like this.

It's a trade off... Curves add interest, and are visually desirable, but they can be trouble spots too.

 

[howaboutme]

I really like this layout a lot and mirrors what I think I want to accomplish in my first setup. My goals are essentially the same. I want to run a cargo with two industries that I can do some switching as well as have a passenger (a big boy, lol) running at the same time. The radii are the issue for me as well since the big boys like big curves. If I want to run a smaller steam, I'll have to do more research to find a "modern day" passenger line that is using a mikado or similar smaller wheelbase so I can do the smaller curves and still have a layout that resembles reality. I decided ultimately to just put a layout on a 36x80 door (good bit bigger than yours, obviously) and try a few layouts until I find something that works for me until I start gluing things down, carving tunnels, etc. Given this will likely be a multi-year project once I truly decide on a plan, I don't want to be halfway in and decide I dislike the layout or want something completely different. My initial layout uses about twice as many turnouts, lol. Yeah. Ouch. $$$.

Just out of curiosity is this going to model some place specific, an era, or just fantasy? Any particular locos you are fond of?

Thanks for your thoughts! I don't have a specific theme, era, etc yet and I'm not sure I am going to. I find it a bit overwhelming adding that into the mix and putting pressure on only adding specific elements into the layout. That said, I have been exploring this but it's harder because I really like the pull in train stations, which are not very popular here in the states. The ones that have them are typically in a more urban area, which I am clearly not doing. I'm likely going diesel from the start but would love to have other options. That is also another reason to keep it period/theme agnostic so it allows the train the set the subject instead of scenery.

Edit. I just looked up the Big Boy and the Kato one states 11" min radius. That's not too bad!

 

[howaboutme]

That's a really good design that does allow a train on each of the main loops and a third switcher in the yard, and it checks the boxes of your want list.

I have 2 suggestions:

First is the spur that serves industry 2. That looks like a really sharp curve, and you will be backing cars into that spur. In my experience, backing through a curve is harder on sharp curves than pulling cars through the same curve. Perhaps move the structure to the East side of the track, and have the spur be able to go a little more straight and go to the West side of the building.

Second is the spur that serves industry 3. You should try to avoid S curves. The one there isn't all that drastic, but you could avoid it by alligning the mainline with the spur a bit more.

Something like this.
View attachment 598741

It's a trade off... Curves add interest, and are visually desirable, but they can be trouble spots too.

Thank you! These sound like good suggestions. The first one, I will have to look like. That geometry is really there so I can carve around the mountain for visual interest but I do get your point. I do think your suggestion makes the industry spur better. Much appreciated!

 

[howaboutme]

Here's an updated layout w/ the suggestions incorporated. I think making the back track straight (or straighter) helped the left outer curve too. That said, I still needed to do the final section at the left corner with flex track. I'm not sure how people can do these complex layouts with the regular pieces. Adjusting industry 2 also made it align w/ the Stone Quarry and that alignment also looks better.

Excuse the 3D. I haven't figured out how to fully control the contours.

I did the simulation, looks cool!

I'd appreciate any more advice. Thanks everyone!

 

[traction fan]

Thanks for all of the initial comments and suggestions from my "welcome" post here. I've already learned a lot.

I'm finally ready to present my draft layout for review, comment, criticism, etc. It's roughly 30x56. I will use 1x6's as the edges and I've already accounted for them in the layout. I've also raised the base a few inches to accommodate the river and viaduct going over it.

I don't have a theme and I'm not sure I want to be limited by a specific theme as that may put too much pressure on me to get it period correct. To scratch my itch, I'm looking for a series of things in my layout suchs as:

• Running at least 2 trains at once.
• Ability to run another locomotive for switching operations
• Both cargo and passenger
• Elevation changes
• Multiple industries

My first criticism about my design is that it's just "too much". There's a lot packed into a small space. I also have some tight curves. I've been looking at locomotives and almost all of the diesels suggest optimum radius at ~11". I go down to 9" or so on my main lines with some tighter at the spurs. Another thing I wasn't happy about is that the inner loop doesn't have a siding other than the X track at the bottom to make that line more realistic. I'd also love another "cargo" yard and can replace the industries with that. Lastly, 9 turnouts plus an X track is going to cost me a pretty penny and call for a lot of wiring. Lastly, I did need a piece of flex track to complete the outer loop (left side).

I look forward to your thoughts!

View attachment 598732

View attachment 598733

View attachment 598734

howaboutme;

This is going to be critical, but no one, including me, expects your first attempt to be even close to perfect. Also accepting and incorporating any of my criticisms is entirely optional. its your railroad, not mine, and if ,like many others, you're not concerned about how realistic it looks, that's strictly up to you.
For instance, we have a member, "vette_kid," who is building a nice little model railroad based on Jurassic Park. Was the movie a true story? No. Did even the fictional Jurassic Park have a railroad in it? No. Is it still a neat idea, and a well-built model" Yes it sure is !

You plan to frame this with 1" x 6" lumber? Why so huge? Most use 1 x 3, a few 1 x 4. but 1 x 6 is really overkill. This layout is intended to support N-scale model trains, not full scale real trains!

I agree with both of JeffHurl's recommendations about the industrial sidings. They will work a lot better if you make them straighter, as Jeff suggests.

The "elevation change" (grade) might look more realistic with a purpose. Why is the outer track raised up, while the inner track is flat? Did the railroad company decide to build an expensive grade for no logical reason? If you moved the mountain to the same side as the raised track, that might look a little more sensible. I would however either raise both tracks (to climb partway up the mountain and then go into a tunnel, (plenty of real-life examples of that) or forget the grade, and run them both through a tunnel. Again a railroad wouldn't spend a few extra millions of dollars, that they had lying around the office, building a tunnel for one track, and a grade for the other. They don't build anything they don't absolutely have to because they don't have extra millions to spend on unnecessary stuff.

By the way, that item you called an "X track" is actually called a "double crossover" and yes, they are expensive. There is another " X item" in model railroading called an "X-section." its nothing like a double crossover. The terminology in this hobby is extensive, and not learned overnight. On the forum we have experienced people who will be able to tell what you mean, even if you use the wrong word. No big deal, give it some time. The attached file is a sort of "dictionary" of model railroad terms. At some point, you're likely to encounter words you are not familiar with here. With this file, you can easily look up the meaning.

Overall it looks like a nice layout, however, I'm concerned about those tight curves.

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂

 

[JeffHurl]

I agree about grades being something to consider.

I have one area that is elevated. I used Woodland Scenic incline starters to go up 1/2 inch over 2 feet. That is a 2% grade. I wouldn't advise anything much steeper than that. Maybe 3% if you're going to run relatively short trains.

Is your yard elevated? Be careful to have the entrance to the yard slightly downhill or completely level. You don't want parked rolling stock rolling back onto the main on their own.

It's fun to see your plan in a 3D rendering!

 

[kenn]

That appears to be SCARM-generated? I ended up using AnyRail but I like the 3-D rendering. Well done.

 

[howaboutme]

howaboutme;

This is going to be critical, but no one, including me, expects your first attempt to be even close to perfect. Also accepting and incorporating any of my criticisms is entirely optional. its your railroad, not mine, and if ,like many others, you're not concerned about how realistic it looks, that's strictly up to you.
For instance, we have a member, "vette_kid," who is building a nice little model railroad based on Jurassic Park. Was the movie a true story? No. Did even the fictional Jurassic Park have a railroad in it? No. Is it still a neat idea, and a well-built model" Yes it sure is !

You plan to frame this with 1" x 6" lumber? Why so huge? Most use 1 x 3, a few 1 x 4. but 1 x 6 is really overkill. This layout is intended to support N-scale model trains, not full scale real trains!

I agree with both of JeffHurl's recommendations about the industrial sidings. They will work a lot better if you make them straighter, as Jeff suggests.

The "elevation change" (grade) might look more realistic with a purpose. Why is the outer track raised up, while the inner track is flat? Did the railroad company decide to build an expensive grade for no logical reason? If you moved the mountain to the same side as the raised track, that might look a little more sensible. I would however either raise both tracks (to climb partway up the mountain and then go into a tunnel, (plenty of real-life examples of that) or forget the grade, and run them both through a tunnel. Again a railroad wouldn't spend a few extra millions of dollars, that they had lying around the office, building a tunnel for one track, and a grade for the other. They don't build anything they don't absolutely have to because they don't have extra millions to spend on unnecessary stuff.

By the way, that item you called an "X track" is actually called a "double crossover" and yes, they are expensive. There is another " X item" in model railroading called an "X-section." its nothing like a double crossover. The terminology in this hobby is extensive, and not learned overnight. On the forum we have experienced people who will be able to tell what you mean, even if you use the wrong word. No big deal, give it some time. The attached file is a sort of "dictionary" of model railroad terms. At some point, you're likely to encounter words you are not familiar with here. With this file, you can easily look up the meaning.

Overall it looks like a nice layout, however, I'm concerned about those tight curves.

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂

Thanks for you comment! I appreciate all forms of comments or I wouldn't have posted or joined the forums.

1x6 is really part of the plan for making the bench. I'm going to put it in the main part of our house, not tucked away in a basement or attic so it has to be furniture-like. 1x6's look better and allow me to frame the structure the way I want to. Here's a sketchup model of my plan:

1x6 and 1x2's with rigid insulation tucked inside. Then I will build up w/ rigid again to make the mountain, grades, etc....Anything more than that, I haven't determined. There's too much to learn so I'm taking it one by one.

I hear you about the elevation difference going up and into the tunnel. I agree that it is absolutely not realistic. The overall thought is that the mountain is at the far right corner and part of a larger mountain that's off the page so to speak. That mountain slowly tapers down, that's why the elevation difference. But to be honest, all of that is an excuse. Quite frankly, it just looks cool.

What I need to do is to determine if I want to be true to scale or dismiss it and just do whatever looks good to me. I did mention that I'm struggling to even determine if the layout will be part of a theme or period. My thought is that'll come later after I determine the overall design of the layout.

Tight curves? I'm concerned too. I don't mind running the trains slow. I wonder if I do a true double track layout, the inner curve will be better but this is what I get for doing a tour de force.

Thank you again!

I agree about grades being something to consider.

I have one area that is elevated. I used Woodland Scenic incline starters to go up 1/2 inch over 2 feet. That is a 2% grade. I wouldn't advise anything much steeper than that. Maybe 3% if you're going to run relatively short trains.

Is your yard elevated? Be careful to have the entrance to the yard slightly downhill or completely level. You don't want parked rolling stock rolling back onto the main on their own.

It's fun to see your plan in a 3D rendering!

The yard is level but I can certainly make it slope ever so slightly towards the station so the cars won't slide back. I did start to test that w/ the layout at Industry #3.

Overall, I like the comments because it makes me think and make decisions.

 

[Steve Rothstein]

If you want a modern railroad that runs steam and diesel to use as a prototype, the Reading, Blue Mountain, & Northern (Reading Blue Mountain & Northern Railroad) runs both freight and passenger runs using a mixture of steam and diesel locomotives. Your SD70 is still a little out of place, but they run F-7As (well they have them in the shop being rebuilt right now), F-9 with an F-7B, GP39RNs, GP38-2s, SD40-2s and SD50s for diesel power. They also run a 2-6-2 Light Pacific #425 and a Reading T-1 class 4-8-4 #2102. Broadway Limited Imports has new runs of both of these steam engines, with the 435 out now and the 2102 due this summer. Both have a recommended minimum radius of only 9.75", so they should work well on 11" curves. I have the previous run of the 425 and it does well on 9.75 curves.

Oh yeah, they do still use the steam in revenue freight service too.

 

[howaboutme]

If you want a modern railroad that runs steam and diesel to use as a prototype, the Reading, Blue Mountain, & Northern (Reading Blue Mountain & Northern Railroad) runs both freight and passenger runs using a mixture of steam and diesel locomotives. Your SD70 is still a little out of place, but they run F-7As (well they have them in the shop being rebuilt right now), F-9 with an F-7B, GP39RNs, GP38-2s, SD40-2s and SD50s for diesel power. They also run a 2-6-2 Light Pacific #425 and a Reading T-1 class 4-8-4 #2102. Broadway Limited Imports has new runs of both of these steam engines, with the 435 out now and the 2102 due this summer. Both have a recommended minimum radius of only 9.75", so they should work well on 11" curves. I have the previous run of the 425 and it does well on 9.75 curves.

Oh yeah, they do still use the steam in revenue freight service too.

Thank you for this! I'm somewhat familiar with the area as I went to college in Philadelphia and have friends that came from there. A quick browse of the website has peaked my interest. There's even a body of water near the Reading station! I'll look into a bit more. Here's where my needs/wants sometimes outweigh the ability to go full to scale. My pull in type train station (what's the term for that?) is not correct but I can certainly make the architecture more like it. I live in northern VA so I'm familiar and have started to look into the Western Maryland RR, VA Scenic Railway and the WV Railway systems. So much to learn!

 

[howaboutme]

Ok. I thought about @traction fan 's advice. I even made some adjustments to the model but I didn't end up liking that outcome. I would prefer to divorce a bit of reality for my layout rather than be constricted to what the RR company would do in real life. In my head, it's an unlimited budget. Beyond the fact that an oval is not scale anyways, my thought is that the 2 main lines are part of a larger fantasy line. Once it goes into the tunnel, who knows where it goes? Then when it re-appears, its coming from some destination far off. I may be stretching it...a bit.

I've taken out a curve that was hidden in the tunnel on the top right. That made the curve way gentler. I had to use flex track to get the curve to connect. Then I softened the lower left corner as the train heads towards the switches into the station. I had to use flex track here too.

I'm far away from spending money so please continue to offer advice. I will always listen. Thanks!

 

[MichaelE]

Backing trains through the S curve at the top leading to the quarry is likely to keep THOG busy. I would smooth that out some.

 

[howaboutme]

Backing trains through the S curve at the top leading to the quarry is likely to keep THOG busy. I would smooth that out some.

Thanks! It's been mentioned a few times and I agree. I like the curve going around the landform but I can massage that area more. I believe I understood everything you said but what does THOG mean?

 

[kilowatt62]

I second what MichaelE said, That quadruple “S” curve heading into the top yard track. Ouch. Gotta rearrange/swap those turn outs around a bit. Also, could turn that building at industry #3 by 90 degs so the track can be lengthened.

 

[JeffHurl]

The Hand Of God

 

[rrman987]

My two pennies here. Consider that scissor crossover might give trouble if all turnouts and crossover pieces not perfectly "level/flat" end to end (ask me why). Might be wiser to break it into two separate pair of turnouts like a lot of railroads do unless space was critical.
Of course it is your RR not mine and you may be enamored with watching trains gliding through the crossover.

 

[traction fan]

Ok. I thought about @traction fan 's advice. I even made some adjustments to the model but I didn't end up liking that outcome. I would prefer to divorce a bit of reality for my layout rather than be constricted to what the RR company would do in real life. In my head, it's an unlimited budget. Beyond the fact that an oval is not scale anyways, my thought is that the 2 main lines are part of a larger fantasy line. Once it goes into the tunnel, who knows where it goes? Then when it re-appears, its coming from some destination far off. I may be stretching it...a bit.

I've taken out a curve that was hidden in the tunnel on the top right. That made the curve way gentler. I had to use flex track to get the curve to connect. Then I softened the lower left corner as the train heads towards the switches into the station. I had to use flex track here too.

View attachment 598795

View attachment 598796

I'm far away from spending money so please continue to offer advice. I will always listen. Thanks!

howaboutme;

I like the fact that you widened one of your curves. Would you consider making your two, somewhat parallel, loops into an actually parallel double track mainline? That would widen out the inner curve going through the mountain, and let you use a double-track tunnel, instead of two separate single-track tunnels.

You are using Kato Unitrack. Kato has recently introduced long sections of Unitrack that are flexible. Is that the type you're using?

The station track arrangement that you have is called a "stub yard" The station itself is a "stub terminal." The other type would be a through station, where a train could stop in front of the station to unload and load passengers, or freight, and then continue on past the station and on to the next.
Generally speaking, stub terminals were the literal "end of the line" since there was no track beyond the terminal, at least on the branch of the railroad's trackage that served the terminal. There were more through stations than stub terminals, but both types were common. Seattle Union Station was a stub terminal in that six tracks ran up to the station building and ended there. However, there were other tracks that continued on under the city, but were not part of the station's own trackage.

On your quarry and lake. Have you considered combining the two? A quarry is basically a large hole in the ground, and they often fill partially with deep water when they are no longer in use, becoming sort of "lakes." This combining of two large features might free up a bit more space in the middle of your layout.

The oft mentioned multiple 'S'-curves in the track serving the quarry can be combined into one continuous curve, and still follow the terrain. Just change the shape of the river/lake to fit the curve. S-curves can be mitigated by inserting a section of straight track between curves. The straight part should be as long as the longest car or locomotive you plan to operate.

Finally, fantasy, or whatever floats your boat, is just fine. Most model railroads are not based very closely on any real railroad anyway. As you yourself just pointed out, ovals of track are not particularly realistic. There are very few real life examples, "balloon tracks" aka "reversing loops" being one. Yet how many model railroads don't have ovals? Very few.

My own layout is loosely based on a real place, time, and railroad company, but with great gobs of "loosely" involved.
I even have (gasp horror!) semi-ovals of track, and reversing loops! I just hide part of them so they don't look so obvious as on most model railroads. The first photo shows my model version of Seattle Union Station. As you can see, the six station tracks go under the station and end there. However, the track at the front continues on around the station and goes under a street (2nd photo) and then on into the other (hidden) part of the oval. Very sneaky of me.

Keep having fun;

Traction Fan 🙂

 

[rrman987]

Suggestion
Maybe consider reversing your river and lake so it looks as if lake fed from a trickling mountain top waterfall. The water fall end on mountain top could be concealed by foliage or trees. This would remove the river from disappearing over the table end. Or reshape river path to curve and disappear behind a hill