Large Scale Central

New Layout drawing help

Track and Trestles
#1

Well got my first pass of my new Garden Railroad done it does need some help making it more interesting.

The Layout is a Horse design with a loop-to-loop mainline and a point to point trolley line. it need some help in making this more interesting as a narrow gauge layout. Would like some input please.

Size is about 30’x50’, the corners will be rounded on the final plan. The design was made using SCRAM software. Would like to have at least 2 towns with industries and an engine facility too.

I am open to all suggestions.

http://freightsheds.largescalecentral.com/users/dennis_cherry/MyFiles/Drawing1.JPG

#2

What are your Givens and Druthers?

#3

Dennis,

What are your goals? Without knowing your interests it’s hard to critique a track plan.

Are you more interested in continuous running, or operations?

Do you enjoy switching, or do you want to railfan?

Will you be doing live steam at all?

Is this layout level or are there any terrain obstacles?

Will you have any bridges or trestles?

Any interest in passenger trains?

#4

Dennis, How are your locomotives and such going to be powered??? track or battery??

#5

Dennis, as you can see, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before we can start critiquing your design. Givens and Druthers are a good place to start.

The Givens are the parameters that can’t easily be changed. Druthers are the choices that need to be made, from a wide variety of possibilities. That’s all. They’re useful terms when we speak of the compromises that will be made. Give credit to either Lynn Wescott or John Armstrong, memory dims.

Here are two links to help.

Using Givens and Druthers

Design Clinic

#6

I kind of going with what Steve F. said… Tight curves and kind of what I see is how are you going to get to some places… I not sure I could get that much of a layout in a 30 X 50 foot space here . Do you have any caulk’s fig. out so far?

Maybe should not want any wider switch yard to have to reach over beyond the third set of track. Just an idea.

Nice layout, but a lot of R.R. for that space.

#7

Bruce Chandler said:

Dennis,

What are your goals? Without knowing your interests it’s hard to critique a track plan.

Narrow Gauge layout around 1900-1950, all engines and cars will be short so curves will not be an issue, I have a couple of Shays, a Goose and other engines like this.

Are you more interested in continuous running, or operations?

Yes, want to have both. This will be a DCC controlled layout and have my system to be used down to two suppliers. Would like to do operation with others as an option with time tables, but be able to go fully or partially automatic.

Do you enjoy switching, or do you want to railfan?

Yes, switching would be great

Will you be doing live steam at all?

No live Steam

Is this layout level or are there any terrain obstacles?

Yes, the lard slopes down right to left and bottom to top, the big l-2-l loop will be on trestles with a 2% grade up and the remaining track on the top section of the layout will be on a 1-2% grade down. I will keep the bottom section of the layout level because of the storage tracks and engine facilities

Will you have any bridges or trestles?

Yes bridges and trestle are a must, no water features, but dry streams are fine.

Any interest in passenger trains?

No passenger trains, but want trolley service on the p-2-p

#8

As a rule, where did they build NG? in areas that had/has difficult topography and relatively low traffic.

And the result would be? lots of curves and/or plenty of grades; minimal infra structure.

Long sections of straight track? forget it, unless in was on a section of Plain.

Double tracked? Not if they could help it, putting in passing sidings at every little town with a few sidings for local industries/shipping points.

You take it from there.

PS what are the actual outline (footprint) dimensions?

#9

“Size is about 30’x50’, the corners will be rounded on the final plan”

#10

Dennis,

That helps a LOT! Thanks for clarifying.

I guess I like the basic concept since it is pretty close to my own; yours is just stretched a bit more. Running two trains, one at a time, I typically get almost 3 hours of operation in. The green line on the layout gives me continuous running. During an ops session, I use that track only as an imaginary interchange point. (The drawing is a bit out of date but will give you a general idea.)

And, for comparison, your plan.

Now, a lot of what I say will be very much based on my personal preference, so of course ignore the stuff you don’t like. :wink:

Your layout has the appearance of a double track mainline. I know it isn’t, but it sure looks like it. For narrow gauge, I prefer the look of a single track going through the terrain.

If you’re going to do any operations, you will need a lot more spurs. Right now it appears that the only spur is on the trolley line. (Unless that’s NOT the trolley line; but either way you need a lot more spurs).

That’s a BIG yard and it will be very hard to reach all the way across. In fact, I don’t think you’ll be able to reach all of the tracks unless you go to the other side of the peninsula. Plus, without any spurs, you have no real reason to have all those tracks. I only have 5 tracks in my yard; it’s tight but challenging.

I forgot to ask - will this be elevated or on the ground? If elevated, you want to make sure that you can follow the train without having to back track around peninsulas. It could get awkward switching that large yard if you have to keep going back and forth to either side.

Instead of a double ended yard, I would prefer a turntable at that end of the layout. You can still have continuous running, of course. But, this gives you a change of direction at that end as well as an interesting feature on your layout.
I think most of your track is way too straight. I prefer gentle curves as it seems more visually appealing.

Even if you don’t plan on operating more than one train at a time, I like the idea of including a couple of passing sidings. I use part of the siding for LCL industry, so I end up moving cars out of the way when I run a train. Makes it operationally interesting.

I don’t have a trolley on my layout, but if I did, I don’t think I’d connect it to the mainline. The only reason that I might share the main would be if I was to have its operation automated so it just went back and forth, and I had to run my train with that in mind. If so, a gauntlet track might be very cool.

I like a place to “stage” trains. My top left loop has a siding where I can hold a train already made up, so it’s ready to go without any switching; this represents the off layout portion of my railroad and allows me to start a train in the opposite direction. If I wanted to, I could run two trains at once and have them meet somewhere there’s a passing siding, though typically I do not operate that way.

Well, I hope this gives you some ideas. The key thing in this is to build the layout that you want. All of us have our own opinions about what makes a great layout, but it’s only our way; not yours.

#11

Bruce & Hans:

I will post some pictures of the actual area with stakes and strings to get a better idea the area.

Yes it does look like a double main line and that is part of the issue with the design.Would like to change that with more curves if possible.

  1. The staging yard is the main passing sidings for all 4-5 the trains.

  2. The reach know be a problem on the right side of the layout but most will be slightly elevated and should be easy to get into the layout. The lower left corner of the layout will be the lowest point of about 12". Have not done a drawing yet on the actual elevation of the land but will post that soon.

  3. The bottom section of the layout will be covered by a porch and will not get wet. The porch is 9 feet above and that will have a 3 foot walk path (left to right) along that section.

  4. The top section will also have a 3 foot walk path (left to right) and the dark area is the steps going up to the porch with a walk path between the top and bottom sections. You can walk around the layout real easy.

  5. The trolley line passing siding was meant to be there to add interest to the train traffic. Both are owned by the “To be named” railroad.

#12

Dennis Cherry said:

Bruce & Hans:

I will post some pictures of the actual area with stakes and strings to get a better idea the area.

Yes it does look like a double main line and that is part of the issue with the design.Would like to change that with more curves if possible.

  1. The staging yard is the main passing sidings for all 4-5 the trains.

  2. The reach know be a problem on the right side of the layout but most will be slightly elevated and should be easy to get into the layout. The lower left corner of the layout will be the lowest point of about 12". Have not done a drawing yet on the actual elevation of the land but will post that soon.

  3. The bottom section of the layout will be covered by a porch and will not get wet. The porch is 9 feet above and that will have a 3 foot walk path (left to right) along that section.

  4. The top section will also have a 3 foot walk path (left to right) and the dark area is the steps going up to the porch with a walk path between the top and bottom sections. You can walk around the layout real easy.

  5. The trolley line passing siding was meant to be there to add interest to the train traffic. Both are owned by the “To be named” railroad.

  6. Yes spurs are needed badly for the industries.

#13

David Maynard said:

“Size is about 30’x50’, the corners will be rounded on the final plan”

How about listing the actual dimensions of the BLUE lines. Approximate probably counts in Horse Shoes, but layout planning is different. However …

#14

The reach is never as easy as you think it will be.

Eight tracks is WIDE.

I have just 5 on mine and find it a long reach. I will typically walk around to the other side to uncouple cars.

#15

I would shorten the distance between your two switches that make the “crossover”.

The way you have it, taking the crossover from the larger radius curve to the smaller one causes a more extreme curve, where moving the switches closer together (butt them together) allows a bit of straight track before taking the switch to the other track.

There was a comment about changing from a double ended yard to single ended to accomodate a turntable, I believe you could put a turntable in the lower left, and maybe shorten some body tracks somewhat.

Double ended yards are great, since they allow not only operations from either end, but also can accomodate two operators.

BUT

You have no yard lead tracks, so all operations will effectively foul the main.

Some notes collected over the years about yard design: http://www.elmassian.com/trains/planning-aamp-design/designing-a-yard

In the picture below the switching leads are in the distance on the right, and the right hand track in the foreground. The main is the furthest left track.

Regards, Greg

#16

Dennis, you asked for constructive criticism, so here goes. Remember, what follows if free, so it is worth what you pay for it, after all, it is your railroad, and the only one that you have to please is yourself.

  1. It looks to me as if you have been infected with the “Cram as much track into the layout as possible” disease. Really, in almost every case of layout design, less is more. Take about half of your track and deleted it now. You will thank me, later.

  2. You want to go with narrow gauge. Yes, every railroad civil engineer tries to design as much tangent as possible, because curves are expensive, in more ways than one. That said, to capture the flavor of a narrow gauge railroad in a model layout, you need curves, lots of curves.

  3. What is the minimum radius? Bachmann Shays look silly, and complain loudly on anything less than 5 ft radius (10 ft diameter), no matter what the advertisements say.

  4. You say that you want to operate your railroad. To me, that means move freight from one location to another. Yet, you only have one yard that serves the midpoint of your loop to loop. There are no industries, no logging camps, nothing. There does not seem to be any reason for the railroad to exist.

  5. Now, what would I do, given the restriction of a 50 x 30 area, as described? I think that I would design a single track main line, with two or three towns and short passing sidings that can hold your locomotive, tender, 5 or 6 cars and a caboose in each town. Off of those passing sidings, I would put two or three stub track for industries, or for a logging camp. At one end of the layout would be the RR headquarters with a turntable and engine house, and other out buildings (remember, the yard in an industry all by itself). At the other end would be the main logging camp, probably with a wye, just big enough to turn the engine, if you use rod engines. Geared engines don’t need to be turned, so you won’t need the wye.

Take a good look at what Kevin Strong had done with his railroad, in a similar space. Turscarora Railroad

I am quite sure that… no, I know that , you will get bored with your as designed railroad in just a few short weeks, and stop using it, and then wonder why you even got into the hobby. I didn’t believe it when someone told me that, either, but it is true. Fortunately, he was a good enough friend to stop by and say, “I told you so, now let’s make something that is fun to use.”

Now, having read all of the above, remember that it is your railroad, and what you have just read is worth exactly what you paid for it.

#17

Steve Featherkile said:

Dennis, you asked for constructive criticism, so here goes. Remember, what follows if free, so it is worth what you pay for it, after all, it is your railroad, and the only one that you have to please is yourself.

  1. It looks to me as if you have been infected with the “Cram as much track into the layout as possible” disease. Really, in almost every case of layout design, less is more. Take about half of your track and deleted it now. You will thank me, later.

  2. You want to go with narrow gauge. Yes, every railroad civil engineer tries to design as much tangent as possible, because curves are expensive, in more ways than one. That said, to capture the flavor of a narrow gauge railroad in a model layout, you need curves, lots of curves.

  3. What is the minimum radius? Bachmann Shays look silly, and complain loudly on anything less than 5 ft radius (10 ft diameter), no matter what the advertisements say.

  4. You say that you want to operate your railroad. To me, that means move freight from one location to another. Yet, you only have one yard that serves the midpoint of your loop to loop. There are no industries, no logging camps, nothing. There does not seem to be any reason for the railroad to exist.

  5. Now, what would I do, given the restriction of a 50 x 30 area, as described? I think that I would design a single track main line, with two or three towns and short passing sidings that can hold your locomotive, tender, 5 or 6 cars and a caboose in each town. Off of those passing sidings, I would put two or three stub track for industries, or for a logging camp. At one end of the layout would be the RR headquarters with a turntable and engine house, and other out buildings (remember, the yard in an industry all by itself). At the other end would be the main logging camp, probably with a wye, just big enough to turn the engine, if you use rod engines. Geared engines don’t need to be turned, so you won’t need the wye.

Take a good look at what Kevin Strong had done with his railroad, in a similar space. Turscarora Railroad

I am quite sure that… no, I know that , you will get bored with your as designed railroad in just a few short weeks, and stop using it, and then wonder why you even got into the hobby. I didn’t believe it when someone told me that, either, but it is true. Fortunately, he was a good enough friend to stop by and say, “I told you so, now let’s make something that is fun to use.”

Now, having read all of the above, remember that it is your railroad, and what you have just read is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Steve, very excellent points and I do agree with you 100%. I am stuck and need some inspiration to help me going forward with my display. This is why I posted help here. There is going to be a lot of glitches along the way on the designed and I know that.

Next post is pictures and dimensions and will show you how small my back yard really is.

#18

Here are the pictures and dimensions requested. You will see how small my back yard really is.

You will notice a dirt road in a couple of the pictures, this is not my property. I have an agreement with the owner to plant a row of “Thuja Green Giant” across the back on his property and will maintain them also. He is moving the dirt road over 16 feet away from from the property lines in our development.

First Picture: Drawing with Dimensions and Grades, The Zero grade elevation will be somewhere around 6-12 above zero and that will be added to the other grades.

![|800x480](http://freightsheds.largescalecentral.com/users/dennis_cherry/layout/Drawing1 with Dims.jpg)

Next five pictures will show the area from all four sides:

#19

OK, now we’re talking. Thanks for the dimensions and pictures.

#20

Very interesting. My layout area is just a tad larger than yours.

Would you consider a tunnel through that workshop door? I would love to have indoor storage of my rolling stock.