Looking for feedback on new N-Scale layout


execsys

New Member
Good morning and thanks for having me in your forum :)
I am developing a track plan for a 8 x 11 N-Scale layout loosely based on the Belt Railway of Chicago. My layout is intended to have two trains running continuously using the provided loops but be able to enter the yard at either "end" of the layout and also reverse direction by using the reverse loops which also will serve to feed the 2 main yards and industry spurs. Please just consider the operational characteristics of the mainline. I grew up on the South Side of chicago and want to create a railroad that is a tangle of trackage, includes some south side neighborhoods, a little bit of the southern approach to downtown and the skyline of course. So, have at it people....

1606403093918.png
 
What will the height of your base be?
I decided to get rid of a duck under and went with a lift up bridge for my layout. Granted, my layout's height is little over 43", so it's not as low as some, but not as high as other. Still ducking under annoying until I choose a lift up design.
Takes a bit more engineering, but it worked for me.

As for the rest of your plan, I know nothing of the Chicago area, but it looks good to me. :)
 
What will the height of your base be?
I decided to get rid of a duck under and went with a lift up bridge for my layout. Granted, my layout's height is little over 43", so it's not as low as some, but not as high as other. Still ducking under annoying until I choose a lift up design.
Takes a bit more engineering, but it worked for me.

As for the rest of your plan, I know nothing of the Chicago area, but it looks good to me. :)

I do ju-jitsu :) I have no problem with a 48" duck under :)
 
I would NOT have a duckunder.


NMRA Duckunder Recommended Practice :
The main purpose of a duckunder is bash in the skull of the idiot that put there. When you hear (Clunk )Oh Dam!! you know its set to the proper height and is functioning correctly .

As designed the duckunder is the least of the problems , its 24 + reach over distances that are totally impractical from build standpoint . The only way to construct it is prefab or have an aisle all the way around the perimeter. Reach over will be even more of a problem with a 48" bench height.
 
I do ju-jitsu :) I have no problem with a 48" duck under :)

Keep in mind that even youngsters do break legs and over time that the ducking under may become an issue. Personally, I'd make it a simple lift out section and wire that into the rest of the track using a simple terminal block. You can still duck under it as your design calls for, but when you decide that ducking under is an issue, it will be nearly the entire way to making it a proper lift out section.
 
So do you guys actually provide the feedback I am looking for which is how the mainline operates? I don't care if you don't recommend a duck under. I am not some novice who's never built a layout. I don't have any youngsters to worry about - I am not done carving out areas for reach. Thanks for all the input but I was really looking for comments on the operating schematic of the mainline.
 
I like the long main to the rear and left, pour a glass and watch 'em run.
The loop to the right has a cool diamond crossing which gives it kind of a Chicago feel but will limit your train length when the loco hits the caboose. Still cool looking tho.
will you be adding switching along the route?
 
So do you guys actually provide the feedback I am looking for which is how the mainline operates? I don't care if you don't recommend a duck under. I am not some novice who's never built a layout. I don't have any youngsters to worry about - I am not done carving out areas for reach. Thanks for all the input but I was really looking for comments on the operating schematic of the mainline.

The duck under is covered. Gottcha! Moving on.. ;)

What do you have planned for the two yard areas and how will they be accessed?
 
latest iteration.....

The idea with this modification was to make the "yards" one big yard for arrival or departure in either direction and more or less combine them. The gray track is all intended to be yard trackage, the green and purple still serve as reverse loops and the red and blue are still the mainline. I need to move some things around to get grade separation in the right places but the schematic seems to be what I am looking for....

1606499403195.png
 
Ah, something I neglected to ask when I first replied... was the loop at grade with a multiple track diamond or was it elevated?
I see the yard is at another elevation compared to the yard, I’m assuming it’s above grade.
I like it so far!
 
So I know it's been a while ;) I have had a lot of advice and even a fully drawn track plan sent to me. So I am back, the new design calls for two levels with a helix. What I am showing you here is the lower level. The fictional "South Chicago Belt Line" (aka Belt Railway of Chicago) will travel from the mouth of the Calumet River west and then north to the slightly skinnied down Clearing Yard. So the lower level is devoted to modeling the mouth of the calumet river plus a fictional depiction of Calumet Steel (based more on Iroquois Steel) Here are the two track plans, the suggested one contributed by a SIG member and now my interpretation of the lower level.

A lot of input on the steel industry coming from November 1950 Model Railroader Magazine article by Bill Rau and Bruce Alter.

1607876495161.png


and here is my redrawn lower level

1607876532092.png


All comments and throughts appreciated....... thanks for all your help :)
 
I think if you wanted to create tangled , intertwined track work that you envisioned back in first post, then you've accomplished that. From an aesthetic standpoint you may be happy with it.

From an operating standpoint I see a several of potential issues . I am not sure that you can meet you original stated operating goals. At this point that may have changed ?
 
I think if you wanted to create tangled , intertwined track work that you envisioned back in first post, then you've accomplished that. From an aesthetic standpoint you may be happy with it.

From an operating standpoint I see a several of potential issues . I am not sure that you can meet you original stated operating goals. At this point that may have changed ?
Yes vision is evolving :) Please - expand on yoru operational issues comments - as I have said, I am no track planning guru
 
Yes vision is evolving :) Please - expand on yoru operational issues comments - as I have said, I am no track planning guru
As a general rule model railroaders avoid curved yards , cars don't couple in turns below a certain radius , and you need a place to put the uncouplers (straight) . If the radius is not broad enough ,the only way to reliably move cars , is with the Right Handed or Left Handed five finger locomotive .

I see some other things with regard to the yard and industry placement and tracks , but some of that depends on how you intend to operate , I'll try to come up with a drawing to help illustrate what I mean .
 



Back
Top