Large Scale Central

New Layout Track Plan

Track and Trestles
#1

This is a “rough” drawing of the track plan as currently planned. The best I can show at this point from the computer program we are trying to learn. The circle shows where a tunnel starts with the other track going over the top of the tunnel. The lower oval area will include a large lake. The center of the dogbone will be a valley with a river flowing into the lake. The upper area is 12 inches and up, higher elevation than the lower area.

http://www.lscdata.com/users/jim_in_mo/_forumfiles/RR_Plan.bmp

Any suggestions?

We are close to laying track and we are trying to fine tune the layout on paper before we start laying the actual track. I’m sure changes will happen when we start putting down the track but we are trying to forsee problems ahead of time.

Thanks, Jim

#2

Jim,

Just remember that no plan survives first contact. :stuck_out_tongue:

What is the purpose of your railroad? From the design, it looks like it’s purpose is for the locomotive to chase the caboose. Where does the RR go?

From my experience, a loop, no matter how many curves will get boring, fast. A railroad has to have a purpose, it has to go somewhere. If you have allowed for that, but not shown it, then, fine. But if you haven’t given consideration to a destination, I suggest that you do so. You don’t have to give up the loop, as long as you have a destination from which to return.

My RR is a point to loop to point. This way, if I want to have Otto as the locomotive engineer, I can do that, but I also have at least two points to deliver cargo/passengers to.

#3

Jim, I agree with Steve. Your first draft does not even have a reversing loop to change the direction of the train. It looks like you have a lot of space to add some exictment to your layout. Look at some others on the internet or even look up some suggested track plans in magazines. There is a lot available for HO and O gauge that can be adapted to large scale. Some sidings and a passing track will add a lot to your operating choices. Maybe you can put in a small yard to make up trains. It is a lot easier to make changes at the paper and pencil stage that after putting down track.

Big John

#4

Lots of circles and few sidings. I could see this being a railroad at an amusement park or a street car line. So what are you modeling?

#5

Nothing wrong with runnin in circles :wink:
Some of us even enjoy it :slight_smile:

But I would suggest a passing siding or two. And a yard to stage your equipment.
These are both nice to have even if you aren’t running “operations”.
Ralph

#6

And, as Ric eluded to, you can still have a revenue producing operational railroad that runs in a circle. Walt Disney runs several of them with multiple trains and the Tweetsie is another example. But a siding or two will come in handy.

#7

Many street car lines ran in circles or figure 8’s. We toured a portion of the Illinois Terminal Railroad two weeks ago. The street car tracks in Granite City, Illinois were a figure 8 through the business district and the local surrounding residential areas. It was said to be quite busy at the crossing.

#8

People generally fall into two camps…
“operators” and “runners”…
'operators" love to do switching, to give their trains “something to do”…
they like point-to-point trackplans…

“runners” like to sit back and let their trains run! :slight_smile:
they like ovals and circles…

personally, to me a point-to-point garden railroad would be the height of boredom…
(even a point to loop)
I would find it very annoying after about 2 minutes…
“what, you have to manually change direction EVERY time you get to the other end? oh man…this sucks!” :wink:

so I definately want loops and ovals…
I want to see my trains running through the railroad I have worked so hard to create…I dont want to have to “do something” every 10 seconds…throwing switches, changing directions, uncoupling cars…no thanks! :slight_smile:

there is nothing wrong with either philosphy…
I agree a plain oval is pretty boring…but so is a straight line…
the trick is to have some nice variety with either philosphy…

I actually like Jim’s trackplan…depending on how the scenery is done, it looks like its big enough that trains would not always be visable, and appear to come and go, to and from different parts of the railroad…
If its all flat, might not be so good…but if there is a lot of variation in terrain, it could work well…

having said that, I would probably still change it! :wink:
just because I dont think its making the best use of the space…
you have the room to do much wider curves…
there is no sense (IMO) in doing 10 foot diameter curves when you could be doing 20 foot!

Jim, we need more info!
could you maybe post an overview photo of the site?
what are you thinking in terms of hills, grades, bridges, etc…
and what kind of trains do you plan to run?
If you like LGB Porters, and hate diesels, you can get away with tighter curves…
if you like USA Trains Alco PA’s with matching passenger cars, you will probably want to re-think your curves…

Scot

#9
Scot Lawrence said:
People generally fall into two camps.. "operators" and "runners".. 'operators" love to do switching, to give their trains "something to do".. they like point-to-point trackplans..

“runners” like to sit back and let their trains run! :slight_smile:
they like ovals and circles…

personally, to me a point-to-point garden railroad would be the height of boredom…
(even a point to loop)
I would find it very annoying after about 2 minutes…
“what, you have to manually change direction EVERY time you get to the other end? oh man…this sucks!” :wink:

so I definately want loops and ovals…
I want to see my trains running through the railroad I have worked so hard to create…I dont want to have to “do something” every 10 seconds…throwing switches, changing directions, uncoupling cars…no thanks! :slight_smile:

there is nothing wrong with either philosphy…
I agree a plain oval is pretty boring…but so is a straight line…
the trick is to have some nice variety with either philosphy…

I actually like Jim’s trackplan…depending on how the scenery is done, it looks like its big enough that trains would not always be visable, and appear to come and go, to and from different parts of the railroad…
If its all flat, might not be so good…but if there is a lot of variation in terrain, it could work well…

having said that, I would probably still change it! :wink:
just because I dont think its making the best use of the space…
you have the room to do much wider curves…
there is no sense (IMO) in doing 10 foot diameter curves when you could be doing 20 foot!

Jim, we need more info!
could you maybe post an overview photo of the site?
what are you thinking in terms of hills, grades, bridges, etc…
and what kind of trains do you plan to run?
If you like LGB Porters, and hate diesels, you can get away with tighter curves…
if you like USA Trains Alco PA’s with matching passenger cars, you will probably want to re-think your curves…

Scot


Shields up! Photon torpedoes armed. Warning Red, Weapons Free! Here we go…

Oh, never mind.

Scott’s entitled to his opinion, no matter how wrong he is. :lol: :stuck_out_tongue:

#10

This was posted as a rough drawing of a preliminary plan. I was looking for suggestions that might help to improve the plan we came up with, not a debate on designing for operations or not. It is pretty obvious that this plan isn’t being built mainly for operations.

The area we have available is somewhat small and the budget is even smaller. So, yes as the budget will allow we will add additional sidings and probably a yard to the right of the lake. Switches aren’t cheap!

Yes, we will have hills and valleys and tunnels and bridges so the trains will come and go from sight quite a bit depending on the viewing location.

Even the tightest curve will transition into and out of the turns.

So, any helpful comments or just continue to criticize because someone is doing something different than you.

Jim

#11
Jim Schneider said:
So, any helpful comments or just continue to criticize because someone is doing something different than you.

Jim


Well said.

#12

Jim,
The plan looks fine to me.
Make sure you allow for access to your interior areas and any areas you have switches, tunnels etc.
The train will always derail where it is the hardest to reach :wink:
Ralph

#13
Steve Featherkile said:
Jim,

Just remember that no plan survives first contact. :stuck_out_tongue:

What is the purpose of your railroad? From the design, it looks like it’s purpose is for the locomotive to chase the caboose. Where does the RR go?

From my experience, a loop, no matter how many curves will get boring, fast. A railroad has to have a purpose, it has to go somewhere. If you have allowed for that, but not shown it, then, fine. But if you haven’t given consideration to a destination, I suggest that you do so. You don’t have to give up the loop, as long as you have a destination from which to return.

My RR is a point to loop to point. This way, if I want to have Otto as the locomotive engineer, I can do that, but I also have at least two points to deliver cargo/passengers to.


Steve how comes yer train is neither track powered or battery??? der at the bottom of yer posts, we have to do the mechanical slider dealy dob!!! Not even a wind up key or nutin!! Just the sliddy back and forth!! Hah LOL Regal

#14

Jim I like it. Ralph is right tho. Keep in mind getting around and to the stuff that will be on the railroad. Also, you might wont to keep in mind were and how people will view your railroad. that is something I forgot to keep in mind when building my railroad and now I get people go into places I don’t wish them to because there trying to get a better view of the trains. I think it is a nice plan.

#15
Bob McCown said:
Jim Schneider said:
So, any helpful comments or just continue to criticize because someone is doing something different than you.

Jim


Well said.

Jim,

I gave you what I thought were helpful comments. You are free to ignore them. Regarding my other post, I hope that you are capable of telling when someone’s tongue is firmly planted in his cheek.

Bob, almost all of the posts here have been helpful, and were give in the spirit of helping someone.

#16
Jerry Hansen said:
Steve how comes yer train is neither track powered or battery???? der at the bottom of yer posts, we have to do the mechanical slider dealy dob!!! Not even a wind up key or nutin!! Just the sliddy back and forth!! Hah LOL Regal
Jerry,

I tried to have it scroll, but the necessary gadgets are not available, here.

#17

My layout composes of 2 roundy-rounds and a yard.
Seems like all who run on it enjoy it immensely as well as myself.
That includes Steve.

I’m too freaking old for a point to point.
Give me a cool drink (or a hot one) some shade or a fire, a rocking chair and let the trains run.

#18

I have a roundy-round too but part of the time it will be a point-to-point. I accidentally put a tunnel in the right place.

#19

My first layout was a simple loop. It seemed like I always ran in the same direction.

When I re-did my layout, I decided I wanted a way to change direction.

I now have a point to loop that I use for operations. The loop acts as a staging area for trains. But, the layout can also be run as a big loop if I don’t want to operate. I have a turntable in my yard to change directions on that end. I can also change direction by use of the loop.

I’ve got three passing sidings. Two of them are located in towns where I can also switch industries, the other one is at the loop.

#20

My layout is pretty much the same as Bruce’s, except that I have a TT at the end of each point, and in the middle because the prototype did it that way. Nothing fancy, based on Dave Goodsen’s (TOC) TT’s. I have a loop in the middle that I can use when I just want to watch the loco chase the caboose. The same loop must be traversed at least once to complete the full journey point to point.