New around the walls layout


Round the wall layout - under construction

I pulled my existing layout apart before Christmas, and started again :eek:, as I wanted to be able to "watch the trains go by" (previous layout was end-to-end :confused:). So I'm now building around the walls in (half of) the lounge room, in a space approximately 3.5m x 3.0m (11ft 6in x 10ft), a double deck, HO modern Australian layout - and I want to run "long" trains (or at least a one or two - and long is a relative term :D).

The object of the layout is going to be watching trains go by (ok tail chasing), but eventually some amount of correctly(!) operating signals (automated control - and it's DCC too!). A number of hidden sidings will give more train variety - trains in these sidings will be completely invisible from the scenic part of the layout, so they need to be able to "hide" the longest trains. A small number of believable but simplified industry/siding space (cement and container) will provide a bit of a distraction from just plain tail-chasing.

The 2 decks (1m and 1.5m high) will be connected by a long incline (double track, bi-directional running) in one direction, plus a bi-directional single track helix in the other - space wouldn't let me get 2 reversing loops in (which also meant I had to have a duck under - oooh my back!), and the woodwork for 2 separate inclines was too complicated and also made the duck under unmanagable. I'm not too worried about trying to make massive scenic panoramas - track with a very narrow bit of space beside it is generally good enough, so the upper deck in particular is going to be very narrow (150mm to 300mm) - but in that space will have an unencumbered double track main line for half the circumference, and a single track leading to the helix, hiding 3 long loops (for the long trains - plus the junction with the incline) on the other half. The lower deck will be wider - 300mm to 600mm - and will have several hidden loops (for "small" trains), the end points for the incline and the helix, and a couple of sidings - but beyond that I have no idea - it will depend on space and visual effect when I've built the base boards!

Hidden 90degree curves at each corner of the room (and the helix) will be Atlas 22inch radius curved track, while any visible curves will be around 30inch radius - this is to get the maximum amount of open trackage, plus moderately visually acceptable visible curves.

So far, I've built the "bare boards" for the top deck, and laid the track so I can see how long I can make the longest train - and the answer is (just) more than 4.2m (14ft), which works out to 2 locos plus 15-20 wagons. This also sets the size of "short (normal)" trains at 1 loco and 8-10 wagons (allows 2 short trains to hide in the same space as 1 long train).

It may not sound like a lot of train, but especially when running slowly (DCC speed limited), they look ok. I took this video of the 2 trains running on the (yet-to-be-sceniced) double track section - which passes over the duck-under. Video is here http://www.flickr.com/photos/40463817@N07/6841217527/. I'll post a couple of photos, plus a plan (as it stands) later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doughless, thanks for putting a lot of thought into this, it is very much appreciated. I'm going to try and sketch it out as you described tonight.

Zoegraf, your situation is very similar to mine. Just curious, what did you learn from your last layout? Anything you liked or disliked? The plan looks pretty good to me.
 
Doughless said:
Not that you want more suggestions here, but for others who may be interested...

Remove the inside building that's angled at the NW and used its spur as the interchange track. Flip the yard tracks so they face west, starting the yard with one curved LH turnout ( a Walthers 7.5 w/b best). Use the E section as the yard lead. Place a small industry along the E wall and another along the inside edge. Embed a runaround along the curve but have enough straight track at the left end to foster hands free coupling. (If you're pushing a train into the yard or onto the runaround, you don't need to couple it so no need for much straight rack at the right end of the runaround.)

Ops would go like this: The loco pulls the train off of interchange around the curve and onto the lead. It pushes the train into the yard for sorting with others. Pulls back onto the lead. Pushes up to the runaround. Gets into position to pull the train counterclockwise and then delivers cars around the layout. At the S wall you could have: A fairly large industry to justify a good size train, one more industry, a runaround, and at least one storage track for any overflow or somewhere to place an odd car while switching the area.

This arrangement would not change the look of your layout hardly at all.

Having the interchange track facing the same direction as the yard eliminates a lot of back and forth movements you would get if they were opposite. More fun, less frustration.

Also, the interchange track might be angled to end at the edge of the layout as to use staging cassettes, which allow you to stage more than one train, unlike a single staging track.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm tired and have not put much time in on it, and I think I missed some things along the way, but here's a start at a configuration as you've described. Again, very rough, but maybe you can nudge me in the right direction.

I realize staging is missing from this plan, but should be easy enough to sneak in on one of the walls..

Thanks as always.

6843828065_a7bc4fb806_z.jpg
 
No problem, I enjoy it. What I don't want is for you to design a layout to accommodate my goals, but to accommodate yours. I don't want to lead you down a wrong path.

My suggestion was predicated upon finding you longer, straighter, yard tracks and arranging the interchange to point the same direction as the yard to make car sorting easier, with less back and forth. I think you can straighten and lengthen the yard tracks with this plan, or the other plan for that matter.

With the plan you just posted...My idea would drastically shorten the NE runaround by having it merge w/ the green line about where you have the yard throat switch now, maybe even a bit farther to the N. That's where I would use a curved turnout. Slide the yard throat to the N to accommodate, and you might be able to use a normal straight turnouts for some of the yard. The green line will be the yard lead. Yes, it is also the main.

The key to this is to have the yard throat and runaround far enough N to allow the loco to pull your longest group of cars out onto the green track to clear the runaround switch and not have to use the liftout.

Frankly, if you straightened the interchange track and made it an industry ( I know, kind of what you had) I think you could use the inside yard track as interchange instead. The added space gained by straightening the tracks should allow you to move the yard throat and runaround to the N. This would sort of shift the whole yard W from where it is now.

For the S wall, the orientation of the switches means you'll be switching from the W. There is no reason to have a cut of cars and a loco E of the runaround, right? So lengthen the runaround to the E so that it just allows a loco (or consist) to clear the switch. (Don't know if this layout supports consists but do what you like),

If you make these changes and follow the operating plan, when the loco pulls the train out of the yard, its rear will be on the green line against the N side of the liftout, when it is running around the cars to the E of the S runaround, its nose will be at the S end of the liftout. This maximizes the run of the loco around the layout, and you don't need the liftout in place to do it, saving your noggin. That's how you maximize the run on a point to point donut plan.

Its a tight fit in the NE, where the runaround and yard throat meet with the main. You need to allow long enough yard tracks, a long enough lead, and a long enough runaround. Precise placement of the turnouts in the area should allow you to do this.

However, you could bring the train out of the yard in multiple short groups of cars and assemble the train on the runaround , thereby eliminating the need for the lead to accommodate a long cut of cars coming out of the yard. A short yard lead can work just fine then, if you assemble the train on the runaround instead of in the yard. A short line or branch line might do this.
 
Doughless,

Thanks for the efforts!

I know I sound like a broken record, but time is tight during the week, but here's a draft of what I THINK I got out of your last post. There are some aspects of it that I like. Part of me is missing the original straight yard with the runaround for the NW spurs, but I figure a couple or few more revisions and something is bound to click.

Staging hasn't been added at this point, will have to figure out the optimal spot for it.

I'm very grateful for this thread, have learned a lot.

6848779825_c55d9d2e7c_z.jpg
 
Yes, that's the gist of it. The details can be worked out from here.

Thanks for putting up with my long winded posts.

Ha....just noticed something...in a way, all we've done is to take your first plan and flipped the yard to the opposite curve and replaced the bridge with a scrapyard. Took a long time to get there...

As far as staging, you'll have to get a clear sense of what you want it to do. You can really enhance the layout with staging or change the feel of the layout with too much staging.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really like the single track between the yard and the interchange, gives a feel of going somewhere!
 
Mm - just throwing out some ideas, not trying to design a plan here.

It is generally a good idea to have the yard on the inside of the main (closer to the aisle), so you won't have to reach across the main when doing stuff in the yard, and so the yard ladder slopes towards the aisle (so turnout clearance points on tracks further to the rear is not obscured by cars on the front yard tracks)

But for a layout where there is not a lot of passing traffic on the main when the main is in use, you can get longer yard tracks by having the yard on the outside of the main (between the main and the backdrop).

See e.g. Byron Henderson's unwrapped shelf version of the venerable Red Wing plan here: http://www.layoutvision.com/id57.html

Note how his yard tracks are curved? Automatic coupling on curved rails is not a problem if curve radius is about 5 times the length of the longest cars. Say you are running 40-foot cars (typical 1950s boxcars) in H0 scale - a car is about 5.5" long - which makes a 5x curve be 5 x 5.5. = 27.5" radius. Not too hard to make yard tracks curve at maybe 30" radius.

Course - as you get bigger and more modern cars it gets a little harder. A curve for automatic coupling of 89' cars in H0 scale really should have a curve radius of about 60".

Still - you can get away with less if you don't need to couple on the actual curved part of the yard track - if coupling will happen on straight parts.

Also note that the layout shelves do not actually have to be rectangular (with or without rounded corners) - you can have "bump-outs" and peninsulas and what not.

Another potential tricks is to have several industries on the same track, or have an industry with e.g. two or three tracks, or having a group of two or three tracks between industries instead of having one track for each industry. An illustration:

multi-track-industry-park.jpg


Smile,
Stein
 
The point about lengthening the yard tracks by placing them outside of the loop is valid. ( Its something I usually suggest myself, go figure). It shouldn't impact any real work that has been done already. Its your choice. You would probably want to use a broader curved turnout since your main would be on the inside, a sharper radius.

The suggestions I have made to you are strictly based upon my vision of the layout, not necessarily yours. I assumed you wanted an operations (switching) based point to point layout. My goal was to maximize the run of the loco in going from point a to point b by placing some of the major elements of the plan in proper areas while still allowing enough room to clear switches and runaround trains, etc, and supporting those suggestions with reasons for each. You could discard any of them or the all of them if you feel they don't meet your vision or you don't agree with my reasons.

Thusly, my vision of staging might different from yours or others. After thinking on it a bit more, as this layout stands, I would probably use the interchange as staging. And I like your original idea of having interchange along the S wall, but I would place it along the wall instead of the inside edge. I would want it there to make it easier to conceal, since I would want to stage 2 or 3 cuts of cars on 2 or 3 tracks to represent, say, 2 or 3 different days the foreign road dropped cars. You would go grab a different cut each (scale) day. Having the interchange and staging facing E along the S wall would allow you to stand in the doorway and fiddle the cars by hand from the end without having to remove a backdrop or reach over scenery. You could fiddle all three days of work in one staging, then operate the railroad over the course of three scale days.; swapping out cars from the yard to the interchange and visa versa, while also switching the industries as appropriate as the train moves around the layout. Many different operating possibilities there.

If you want staging to do more, like involve more locomotives moving independently, or having a train run around the whole layout while you or another operator switches the local, that involves something beyond my vision. In that case I would probably fail to offer you good suggestions for that. However, I would think that the locations of the major components of the layout would not have to change to incorporate that kind of staging.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never really gave any thought to putting the yard up against the wall, I guess in the back of my mind I was thinking about reach issues. But with a narrow shelf, as long as there are no large structures to reach over it shouldn't be an issue. And it's not like the yard will be worked that hard.

I also hadn't thought about having staging strictly for cuts of cars, was only thinking of it being used for an additional train with power. It's a great idea.

I truly appreciate all the feedback, it's really helping me shape my vision of the layout and how it will operate.

Will be back with another plan or two to look at.
 
GM,

Keep in mind that you should be in no hurry to get a trackplan. Read, study and read again! I spent almost 15 years planning what would become my "last" layout. I don't think that anyone should spend that amount of time planning, but in my case it was forced onto me.

Taking your time now will result in a better plan, and one that you'll be satisfied with more.

How are you drawing the plan? Pencil and paper, or some computer software?
 
Good advice Carey. I'm not trying to rush it, but I've been agonizing over different ideas for the last two years or so, so I'm more or less trying to light a fire under me to get out of analysis paralysis mode. Believe me, I'm not planning on laying track this weekend!

Maybe next weekend...:D

I'm using a rather basic application to draw the plans, Empire Express, on a Mac. It doesn't do anything fancy like 3D, but it has the libraries I needed, namely Atlas and Walthers Code 83.
 
Here's the latest revision, it's missing some detail but for now I hope it's good enough to discuss further. I find myself wanting to put "something" in the void between the aisle and yard, but it would have to be low relief so as not to hinder access to the yard.

TIA for any additional input.

6859174087_3f08d7a7f6_z.jpg
 
GMTrainNut said:
...

I'm using a rather basic application to draw the plans, Empire Express, on a Mac. It doesn't do anything fancy like 3D, but it has the libraries I needed, namely Atlas and Walthers Code 83.
Click to expand...

Any program is good as long as it has the turnouts and crossings laid out to the proper size. That is where many "track planners" go wrong, esp those who use pencil and paper. I know, as I have drawn many a layout as a side for many people, using pencil, paper, protractor and compass. Now I only use the computer to ensure the turnouts and other needed items get drawn to a size that allows the layout to actually be built.

We had an architect in our MR club who decided that we needed a new layout. (When we didn't!) He drew one up that would have been impossible to build! He had turnouts drawn into configurations that could not be done, even if they were handlaid.
 
Ok, the latest revision has the yard back on the E side, rearranged some things. I like the distance between the yard and interchange.

I envision a train being assembled at the yard, heading out, maybe serving industries C and D, then heading on to the interchange and scrap yard.

On the return trip, we service industries A and/or B, and if we didn't have any cars for C and D on the way out, we use the runaround and serve them now.

Then a train comes out of staging to interchange, and the groundwork is laid for the next operating session.

Also added a small engine facility to please the locoholic part of me.

Just another revision that will hopefully get me closer to "the plan".

TIA

6878443943_b769764481_z.jpg
 
Hopefully you have come to a plan you will enjoy. Amazing amount of developmental feedback you have gotten from some very well respected members of this online community.
 
I'm a bit worried about the two curves I've highlighted with arrows. They look like S bends.

The exchange track just needs a little straight section, the length of your longest car, to fix it.

The staging track could be fixed by having the mainline diverge off it rather than the staging track diverge off the mainline, umm, if that makes sense.
 
You're making me tilt my head, relative to all the other plans.:)

Does your software make turnouts to scale, including curved turnouts? The NW corner looks a bit optomistic. You need to allow enough space for a backdrop to hide staging.

PaulB's suggestions are very good. Also, I would also angle the E runaround towards the center of the room a bit and flip the scrapyard to against the wall. That should allow for a longer straighter interchange track.

You might consider thinning the benchwork in the corner by the closet if you're planning on lifting it out for access. Thinner means lighter weight.

Edit: I'm also working on drawing my own plan for your space. Its different than what we've been doing. It might be a while for me to get it finished and posted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So here's an attempt to put my ramblings into a drawing. (Its also my first paste of a picture to a forum, so bear with me...)

35fc32c5.png



Explanations:

N wall: Since nobody really opens a door at 90 degrees to enter a room, I added a small wedge of bench to hold a switch lead for a loco and one car that allows the smallish N wall to become a switching district holding two industries and a small switchback for engine servicing and an enginehouse.

W wall: A long runaround and yard. The runaround and each yard track should hold 6 to 7 cars. A late addition is the small runaround that holds 4 cars, which is the same length as the interchange track (along the E wall). This allows a locomotive to switch everything except Middlesex, even head to the interchange, while a train is waiting on the track to be picked up by a loco coming out of staging. This may make the area look too busy but I thought the second runaround would benefit two person operations too much to leave off. Also on this wall is the scrapyard and Middlesex.

S wall: Scenery and hidden staging. Its a longer wall than the N wall, so staging fits better here.

E wall: Angled the runaround for a longer interchange track. Both the track and runaround hold 4 cars. The short spur holds a road salt or cement distributor, which is a good use for short hoppers to be spotted on the short spur. You can also add a 5 inch shelf to the space between the closet and the wall if you wanted to eliminate the other staging turnout and extend the staging track straight against the wall.

Overall, the layout is meant to be operated strictly point to point, with the drop in only needed for continuous running when you want that. I also moved the drop in section closer to the center allowing the door to swing freely when the drop in is in place.

Hope you find some elements of this to be useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top