New Layout, Needs some, make that a lot, of Help

[gngsquared]

OK, so I have decided to go with HO scale and code 100 for my layout. I chose HO due to my comfort level with that size, bad eyes and old hands. I chose code 100 since it will allow the most interchange of manufacturers parts. I would also like to use DCC for the control system. I used a couple of plans that I found on the internet, other sources, and my own crazy ideas. My vision for the layout is a coal mine at one end and a power plant customer at the other. I would like to have a at least one community somewhere on the plan and maybe a couple of industries along the line. I have designed the layout but I need advise on the mine and power plant service, ie how do I get into and out of the areas. The mine will be a couple of inches, maybe three/four, above the base and the hidden track will be in a tunnel and bridge. What I need to know is if this layout is even possible? What changes would help make it more usable? And if I am on the right track, so to speak. I don't even know what I don't know so I am working in the dark for the most part. I hope that all of you 'experienced' (that means us old guys) can point me in the right direction, or tell me to go back to the drawing board newb and start over. The image shows the mess that I have made so far. PLEASE HELP!

 

[Iron Horseman]

I have decided to go with HO scale and code 100 for my layout. I chose HO due to my comfort level with that size, bad eyes and old hands. I chose code 100 since it will allow the most interchange of manufacturers parts. I would also like to use DCC for the control system.

Sounds like some wise choices.

My vision for the layout is a coal mine at one end and a power plant customer at the other. I would like to have a at least one community somewhere on the plan and maybe a couple of industries along the line.

Any other things?

What I need to know is if this layout is even possible?

I don't see why not, as long as the mine track cuts off the main from the upper track while the line coming out of the yard is on the lower. There is going to be an access issue to both the upper left and upper right corners.

What changes would help make it more usable? And if I am on the right track, so to speak. I don't even know what I don't know so I am working in the dark for the most part. I hope that all of you 'experienced' (that means us old guys) can point me in the right direction, or tell me to go back to the drawing board newb and start over.

The first thing that I see is that the yard needs a tail track going back to the left. That way you could work the yard without blocking the main line - red line. The access to the mine is fairly easy. Keep that track going up and then just extend it over to the mine. - green The power plant could be accessed in several ways. I've marked three in pink, orange and brown.

Before I start making any more suggestions, let me ask a few questions.
1. Is there a specific reason for the loop back midway in the center there? Is that like an original layout that is then extended?
2. The double crossover (which also makes double reversing loops) at the bottom. Is there a specific reason you are wanting those? Just to reverse direction of trains?
3. How many trains do you wish to run simultaneously? General rule is that at a minimum you need one passing siding per train, so right now it could handle 2.



You know, one doesn't have to have both sides of the load on the layout. But if that is what you truly want, why not put the mine and power plant back to back in the center so they could share tracks from both ends. Move the yard to where the mine currently is. Oops that is another "total change" suggestion, that I wasn't going to make.

 

[NYC_George]

Have you bought the track yet? In 1997 I started my layout using code 100. It was a mistake. Code 83 is so much better and easier to work with. I've changed a lot of it to code 83. Peco is the best. Think about it again.

George

 

[D&J RailRoad]

I would second what George said about code 83 track. Unless you're running the older pizza cutter wheels, everything will work just fine on the code 83 track and it looks much better.

 

[santafewillie]

I respectfully disagree with George and Ken regarding the looks of code 83. The difference between code 100 and code 83 is .017", approximately the thickness of four human hairs. If you are on a budget, Atlas code 100 is generally 15% less expensive than Atlas code 83 at most places. Code 83 is a little more detailed, but once painted and ballasted, nobody but an eagle-eyed modeler can tell the difference. As to George's comment about it being easier to work with, I cannot comment since my experience is limited to a couple of pieces of flex only. Peco track is more expensive, but only marginally at many retailers.
Just my 2¢.

Willie

 

[NYC_George]

I know .017 doesn't seem like much but it is. It looks out of scale. I would cut your costs some where else. I don't like atlas because one rail is fixed in it's position. I'm not sure how much more Peco is but it's a better track code 100 & code 83.

George

 

[gngsquared]

Sounds like some wise choices. Any other things?

Lots of stuff. Every time I look at a youtube, magazine, catalog, or other members layouts I want it all. But who here doesn't. What I really want is a layout that I can start. Chomping at the bit, but I don't want to go down a dead end and have to start over.

I don't see why not, as long as the mine track cuts off the main from the upper track while the line coming out of the yard is on the lower. There is going to be an access issue to both the upper left and upper right corners.

The layout will be away from the walls. I will have enough room to get to all of the setup. Planning on putting removable Masonite panels on three sides on the outside for background scenery that can be taken off if I need access.

The first thing that I see is that the yard needs a tail track going back to the left. That way you could work the yard without blocking the main line - red line. The access to the mine is fairly easy. Keep that track going up and then just extend it over to the mine. - green The power plant could be accessed in several ways. I've marked three in pink, orange and brown.

OK, quick and dirty image. Did away with the X in the middle. The blue is main on the left and the dotted section will be in a tunnel, light green is main on the left, sort of since they are both connected. The dark green shows where the highest elevations will be.
​

Before I start making any more suggestions, let me ask a few questions.
1. Is there a specific reason for the loop back midway in the center there? Is that like an original layout that is then extended?
2. The double crossover (which also makes double reversing loops) at the bottom. Is there a specific reason you are wanting those? Just to reverse direction of trains?
3. How many trains do you wish to run simultaneously? General rule is that at a minimum you need one passing siding per train, so right now it could handle 2.

1) Part of the plan that I was copying. Allows me to run a train while I play in the yard, pick up at the mine, or drop off at the power plant?
2) Not really, got rid of it in the new image. It's what happens when I have a new toy, gotta make it bigger.
3) I haven't even run one train for over 50 years, but if I was to guess at least two to start. I put a second passing line on the revised image. Stupid question, how does one get the train out of the mine area without backing up all the way down the mountain to the turnout?

​

View attachment 65230

You know, one doesn't have to have both sides of the load on the layout. But if that is what you truly want, why not put the mine and power plant back to back in the center so they could share tracks from both ends. Move the yard to where the mine currently is. Oops that is another "total change" suggestion, that I wasn't going to make.

Good idea, but I wanted the mine in the 'mountain' and the power plant down near what will be the Kanawha river. That's how I remember it from vacations to my Grandparent's house. Still is a power plant there today.

 

[gngsquared]

Ken, Willie, and George.

Far be it for me to comment on the 100 vs. 83 debate since I have zero experience with either.

Ken, I have read many of your post and they are knowledgeable and informative.
Willie, your layout is outstanding and your input is always respected.
George, thanks for the comments, all well taken.

That being said I am still at a loss. I am not building this to win awards, accolades, or be a 'rivet counter' layout. I am building it to have a release ie. hobby, stretch my imagination, and most to have fun. I am getting no where with making a decision.

 

[beiland]

Hi Sam,
I think you already have a reasonable start on planning. I'd pay attention to what Iron Horseman has to offer in advice. he's been a help to me in my thoughts of a slightly bigger dbl deck layout.

And I'm going to use good old reliable Code 100. Granted if I didn't already have lots of it in track and turnouts I might consider Code83 as it does look better, but if you just paint the rail with rust colors, then clean therail tops, it mask the height difference. And if I should acquire a few older locos, or a TVG fast train, or etc,, I don't have to worry over hitting the rail spiikes ( I have some of theses trains already).

BTW, you might consider this for your power plant scene,... (can't find the link on this forum at this time?)

 

[otiscnj]

FWIW, I find wye's to add operational interest, particularly as a junction arrangement. You ought to have a trackplan you like after a few hundred more iterations(ha, ha).

 

[Iron Horseman]

Lots of stuff. Every time I look at a youtube, magazine, catalog, or other members layouts I want it all. But who here doesn't. What I really want is a layout that I can start. Chomping at the bit, but I don't want to go down a dead end and have to start over.

Ha! I know what you mean there. I've started over many a time just because of new information I've encountered.

how does one get the train out of the mine area without backing up all the way down the mountain to the turnout?

A run around track at the mine would let the caboose and loco swap ends on the train, or if the mine had a dedicated switcher it could pull the hopper cars off the arriving train.
My mine on the Pine Ridge had both. Red is the switcher pocket and yellow is the run around.

Good idea, but I wanted the mine in the 'mountain' and the power plant down near what will be the Kanawha river. That's how I remember it from vacations to my Grandparent's house. Still is a power plant there today.

Better reason than most.

 

[gngsquared]

FWIW, I find wye's to add operational interest, particularly as a junction arrangement. You ought to have a trackplan you like after a few hundred more iterations(ha, ha).

Lord knows that is what I am trying to avoid. I aint getten no younger.

 

[beiland]

Power Plant Scene

Hi Sam,

BTW, you might consider this for your power plant scene,... (can't find the link on this forum at this time?)

I had a HARD time finding that old posting of mine, and once I did I decided to drag it out into the daylight again.
Sorry its co-joined with a rocket launch idea as well, so forget that portion and just look at the power-plant theme.

[url]http://www.modelrailroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?40901-Power-Plant-Scene-amp-Saturn-V-Rocket-Launch-Scene[/URL]

 

[gngsquared]

Here it is, my hopefully final attempt at my layout. I am christening it the GNG2 RR. It is marginally set in WV, and is the WV I remember as a child. Going with the late 50's to mid 60's for time period. Not prototypical in any sense.

The track length measures a total of 262'. It is 10'x20' in surface. Elevations will be 0-6". Used Peco code 83 for the track (this may change when I start adding up the cost). Colors shown are: Orange - Continuous Run Loop, Dark Pink/Dashed - Service Loop and tunnel line, Dark Blue - Mine Area, Black - Power Plant, and Green - Repair Yard. I will add houses and other buildings/features as it progresses.

All advise and comments are greatly appreciated. I need the most help in the yard areas, I really like turnouts (maybe too much). Do they work as shown? Improvements, additions, deletions? Am I nuts? Alright, don't answer that last one.​

 

[dave1905]

I would ask about the radii on the main track, it looks like you have a lot of 18" radius track. I'm sure you'll get lots of people telling you its fine, but reality is there are a lot of engines and cars that can't negotiate that tight of a radius. Forget about highly detailed passenger cars, or long engines, steam or diesel. If you are running Geeps and 40 ft cars it will work.

The power plant area can be greatly simplified, all those interior crossovers are a lot of cost for very little, if any, benefit. Power plants have very little switching, you just shove loads on one side of the dump and pull empties from the other side. Very simple, pretty much the same operation and track plan as the mine, it just works in reverse.

One caution is running a tunnel under a yard, yards tend to have lots of feeders and mechanisms and stuff sticking out the bottom and that can interfere with a tunnel track.

I'm not feeling an overall theme or purpose for the layout, its just loops of track with a yard, a mine and power plant scattered around. To get from the mine to the power plant you don't even have to make one loop. If you think about it a train doubling out of the mine could run into a train doubling out of the power plant. It would be better if a train leaving the mine or power plant could make a loop around the alternate route before reaching the other facility. Right now a train going between the two has to go by the other before getting to the alternate route.

Have you considered making it a loads in, empties out arrangement? Your footprint and commodity preference is ideal for that.

 

[santafewillie]

Sam - I echo everything that Dave brought up, especially the seemingly excessive number of switches at the power plant. Another thing to take into consideration is access. If the bottom and sides are butting against the walls, the two bottom corners will be nearly impossible to reach at 5' approximately; as well as the left side at 3'+. Same with the yard unless there is access at the top.
Are you tunneling under the yard or elevating it? Unless you plan to raise one track and lower the other track, those are going to be some steep grades if you allow full clearance for hand in the tunnel. My rule of thumb is to provide at least 4" from railhead to railhead to allow for roadbed under the raised portion, and even that doesn't give much hand room. 4" rise at 2% grade takes 16 linear feet of track.

Willie

 

[gngsquared]

Dave:

Yes, most of the radius are 18". My idea involves running two hopper coal, some 40' tank/box, and GP's. This is what I remember from the times I was near the railroads, granted a long time ago.

Not knowing what I don't know makes for a lot of mistakes, and I am full of those.

Well taken on the running under the yard. The elevation at that location is 6" which is the highest I could go and still keep the incline less than 3%. Will have to consider that fact.

The idea was that the main line could run itself while I switched empty/full in the mine and power plant. Would love a longer main but can't get it in my head how to accomplish it. Tried more ideas than Edison for his light bulb, and still no go.

Not sure about the last comment, can you elaborate?

Thanks for the comments.

 

[gngsquared]

Willie:

Appreciate the help!

Not an OPs guy, well railroad anyway. Just looking at it and trying to see how traffic comes in, drops, pickups, leaves, and moves in the yard caused a lot of what if's and I don't have the experience or knowledge to know best practice. Makes for a lot of CMA decisions.

I agree that the bottom right corner is a stretch. The other sides are not against a wall and will allow access from both sides. I can move the layout two feet to the left and have space between the wall and that bottom right corner. That is a thought.


I have the mine at 6", the bottom left corner at 2", and then it is at 1" at the bottom right corner. All of the power plant, yard, and repair is at 0" The grade for the layout should not exceed 3%, and is under that for most of the runs.

Keep it up, I am a wet sponge but still trying to soak it all in.

Thank you.

 

[dave1905]

Not sure how the pictures will translate. I have a rough sketch of a layout. Same water wings you have, but use 24" radius instead of 18, you will appreciate it later. Move the top "blob" (return loop) to the left to give room for the lower blob. I drew this assuming that you have access completely around the table.
Black- main line
Red/Blue - mine/power plant.
Purple - "bypass" track (dashed = hidden)
Thick light Blue - Backdrop
Green areas - Yard, engine facilities.
Orange shading - possible scenic/industrial/town areas

This uses a loads in/empties out concept. There are four tracks that pass through the backdrop. Two are for empties, two are for loads. When a loaded train arrives at the power plant, it shoves the loaded cars into the inbound/load tracks tracks and then pulls the empties out of the empty tracks. The coal train takes the empty train back to the mine by running clockwise around the layout, it can go through the purple bypass to make multiple orbits. Finally it arrives at the mine. It shoves the empties into the mine empty tracks. It pulls the cars loaded from the mine and runs counterclockwise around the layout, using the bypass track to orbit until you want to get to the power plant. It shoves the loads into the loaded car track and pulls empties from the empty track.

Repeat as necessary. Loads always go counterclockwise and empties always go clockwise With a yard in the middle you can do some general freight switching, or switch out cars or swap power or whatever. You can make the bypass longer or shorter to give a longer alternative route, you can put a grade on the bypass to get more scenic effect. There are several nice size areas for towns or industrial areas or just scenes depending on your preference.

You will need to add a couple sidings, one on each long side and maybe one on the bypass if you lengthen it.

 

[gngsquared]

Thanks Dave. Back to the drawing board with new ideas. Thanks!