I have been playing with 2 track plans and contemplating a 3rd (still in progress) my dilemma is that I like each for different reasons:
track plan 1 has tons of switching opportunities, a grade change (heading left from the door at the first turnout, towards the back of the layout goes up about 2.5" and towards the front of the layout goes down about 2.5" and ducks under the upper tracks at the far left), street running which could be a + or a - and the lead on the left interferes less with the door than in the next option. Negatives would be more work to complete, grade changes could create "challenges" during switching sessions.... it also comes out over the edge of my workbench more than I would like... addendum: not sure I like the switch back on the back of the left leg behind the yard trackage.
track plan 2 faster build, less trackage and potentially more scenery and structure opportunities and is more likely to be completed in a reasonable time frame thus winning me a bottle of Gibson's finest Canadian whiskey for completing a layout before Squidbait. Negatives: less switching opportunities and longer lead in behind the door .... oh and Squid is less likely to approve as it will be completed much quicker (not sure if that really falls under negatives but I am sure Squid will think so).
Currently plan is to hand lay everything in code 70 and run MRC prodigy wireless. Benchwork would be freestanding as it will eventually come out of this room and move to our store when we get a bigger location (and my son moves out so I can build my big layout in the basement).
I am still not 100% comfortable with the narrow yard area on the left side in either plan but am very limited in this area as it cannot encroach too much on the bench and I want to ensure I have access to the window (there is a window on the left side of the room). Open to criticism or pats on the back.... but am hoping for a bit more than "wow that looks nice".
I like the second one. The first plan looks too busy. I'm also starting to hang with the "less is more" crowd these days as well.
Perhaps you could provide a bit of background on what your plans are. Switching, Scenery? Also what type of industries do you see your RR servicing? What era, 20's, 30''s --- Modern. How high is your layout off the floor. My layout is about 54" high and sits right on top of my work bench area. Perhaps if you raise the height, you might feel inclined to make it a big wider on the left leg?
Lots of questions, and there will be more. However if I know anything about the fine folks around here, the more info they have to go on the better they'll be able to help and perhaps help you design a solid track plan.
Simple solution take what you like from both and or the third plan and incorporate the best stuff into one plan. I think we've all experienced what you are facing. For me I did a bit of everything , inclines , switching opportunities , scenery and trust me when I say it can be done, it just depends how far your willing to go.
Lynn
New Adventure <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9245">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9245</a><!-- l -->
I like Plan One better, although I have concerns that your grade is too short to accomplish the rise you need to clear those tracks going into the tunnels. I also don't see where the lower level tracks (beyond the left of the switch to the upper level) have much room to descend, as the majority of the lower level tracks appear to be a passing track area - difficult to park cars on much of a grade, and it would make switching moves more difficult. The siding to the industry could be built level, though. If you're not running hi-cubes or auto racks, 2.5" will clear most HO equipment, and 7' of incline at about 3% will give you the needed clearance.
If you move the switch leading to the grade to the right (towards the door), you could either gain some length on the incline, lessening the grade, or you could keep the grade fairly stiff, then move the switch that's just to the left of the side street to the opposite side of the main street and farther to the right. This would allow you to lengthen the switchback track, although it would also shorten those industrial sidings accessed via the switchback.
The other change that I'd suggest is to have only the rearmost lower track enter the tunnel as you've drawn it. If you curve the other lower track to follow the facia, then have it enter a tunnel at a point near where the layout facia meets the upper level, you could continue the lower level track beneath the upper-level yard. This area would be a good place for a staging track, as you could park a complete train here, out of sight (more-or-less).
I wonder also why you want to hand lay the track, if time is a concern. There is commercial code 70 flex available, or you could use the Central Valley tie strips, with code 70 rail. Nothing wrong with hand laying of course, but flex better replicates the details of the prototype, with tie plates and spike heads at every tie.
Okay so Tetters: reasonable scenery (including structures in with scenery) and switching. Obviously watching trains roll by is not an option in the space. Era is late 40's early 50's branchline-ish.
Height of layout will be in the same range as yours however height will not allow more room around the bench as there are cabinets above the bench that I am not willing to part with.
Nomad: all sidings have been checked for lenght by running trains on them in Xtrkcad... not perfect but it helps to see how much room you have to play with.
Doc: Have to read your post in depth this evening and do some noodling with XTC. If you are familiar with the program I would be happy to upload the raw file. The layout in #1 is actually a regurgitation of a layout that I built successfully a number of years ago but then had to part with prior to completion so I was able to work in some fixes from the original plan. Grades do need further consideration for sure but you can consider these plans as basically drafts or initial thought process to get the juices flowing. The code 70 is because I very much like the way it looks... handlaying is because I want to try it, appearance and practice for the big layout and to keep squidbait from whining that I cheated Time is less of a concern than I may have made it out to be...
I had considered CV tie strips.... Squid tried them once and had mixed feelings. Hand laying will allow me some flexibility in that I wont be stuck with a standard numbered turnout if I get into a tricky situation although I notice CV has flex turnout strips as well now. Have you used CV tie strips?
bob_suruncle Wrote:oh you guys are full of questions!
Doc: Have to read your post in depth this evening and do some noodling with XTC. If you are familiar with the program I would be happy to upload the raw file. The layout in #1 is actually a regurgitation of a layout that I built successfully a number of years ago but then had to part with prior to completion so I was able to work in some fixes from the original plan. Grades do need further consideration for sure but you can consider these plans as basically drafts or initial thought process to get the juices flowing. The code 70 is because I very much like the way it looks... handlaying is because I want to try it, appearance and practice for the big layout and to keep squidbait from whining that I cheated Time is less of a concern than I may have made it out to be...
I had considered CV tie strips.... Squid tried them once and had mixed feelings. Hand laying will allow me some flexibility in that I wont be stuck with a standard numbered turnout if I get into a tricky situation although I notice CV has flex turnout strips as well now. Have you used CV tie strips?
I've not used the CV tie strips, but hope to when (and if) I ever build the second level of my layout.
As for track planning stuff, I have to admit that it's not really my "thing". I had a sketch when I started my current layout, but tossed it when a third of the layout room was expropriated for "family uses". The current layout was built with the original plan in mind, but with less room, so I ended up with a lot more curves and a lot steeper grades than originally planned. Two of my towns require a switchback for working the industries, although a change from calling them "a nuisance" to "adding operational interest" mitigated the problem.
doctorwayne Wrote:I have concerns that your grade is too short to accomplish the rise you need to clear those tracks going into the tunnels. I also don't see where the lower level tracks (beyond the left of the switch to the upper level) have much room to descend, as the majority of the lower level tracks appear to be a passing track area - difficult to park cars on much of a grade, and it would make switching moves more difficult. The siding to the industry could be built level, though. If you're not running hi-cubes or auto racks, 2.5" will clear most HO equipment, and 7' of incline at about 3% will give you the needed clearance.
If you move the switch leading to the grade to the right (towards the door), you could either gain some length on the incline, lessening the grade, or you could keep the grade fairly stiff, then move the switch that's just to the left of the side street to the opposite side of the main street and farther to the right. This would allow you to lengthen the switchback track, although it would also shorten those industrial sidings accessed via the switchback.
The other change that I'd suggest is to have only the rearmost lower track enter the tunnel as you've drawn it. If you curve the other lower track to follow the facia, then have it enter a tunnel at a point near where the layout facia meets the upper level, you could continue the lower level track beneath the upper-level yard. This area would be a good place for a staging track, as you could park a complete train here, out of sight (more-or-less). Wayne
Okay Doc: you got me on a couple of points: 1 grade is pretty steep and you are right that there is no room for the to descend to the trackage at the front of the layout. Original plan was to have track at the back and under the window about 3" above grade and the track along the fascia to be at grade. I moved the turnout closer to the door as you suggested and have modified the track up top considerably by changing the location of the switch to access the the trackage on the backside of the street over to under the window. Grade heading up from the door will still be steep but not as steep and the trackage appears to be neater.
Changed the one duck under track as you suggested and it now goes to a 2 track staging area large enough to hold a couple of trains out of site.
been switching it in xtrkcad for a couple of hours and it seems to flow well although there are some challenges to switching along the backdrop as the loco needs to be on one end for one industry and the other end for the others.
I like your solution to the grade problem and it's cleaned up the area were the switchback was, too.
You have a runaround track in your upper yard, although it's pretty close to the blind end to be a lot of use - what if you moved it either to the yard throat, or to the track which leads to the in-town switching area? The latter spot would make it useful for both the industry beside the upper yard and for the in-town area, too. Long enough for a loco and a couple of cars would probably do the trick, without using-up a lot of real estate.
I'm not sure I understand completely the elevations of your last plan. Are the yard to the left and the track going through the center of the layout at grade, with the rear track and industries elevated while the front track with the runaround going to the hidden staging is descending below grade? If the run around is not level, it won't be of any use because anything dropped there will want to roll away. You could use the locomotive escape track in the yard as a run around for working those industries in the rear of the layout, but I'm not sure how often the prototype would have put a locomotive in the center of a train to run from a yard to an industry in the late 40's to early 50's. You will be limited to very short trains, I think probably limited to about 4 40 foot cars on that upper section. If you can move those 2 industries on the right side of the upper or back section just a few inches to the right, you could possibly fit a run around in the section between the two sets of industries. It may even fit without relocating any industries. Put two turnouts back to back where the one is on the right side. Put the other end of the run around to a switch coming off of the wye switch servicing the industry on the left with the run around track connecting the 2 switches. The tight area will result in you having to plan switching moves carefully in order to keep enough clearance on both tails of the run around to allow you room to work, but I think it would be doable.
For me I did a bit of everything , inclines , switching opportunities , scenery and trust me when I say it can be done, it just depends how far your willing to go. 
Time is less of a concern than I may have made it out to be...