Compare layouts.....you pick


C

chimmike

UP and BNSF freelancer
Here are a couple layouts. One designed by Chip (which is why it looks SOOO much better) and one I did.

I'm basically looking to do a slightly longer, if not complete dual track main. I like Chip's design, but I'm looking for more dual track stuff and bigger industry spurs, plus my design allows for the switcher to 'runaroud' in order to shove cars into spurs without having to block the main for too long.

experiment2bmp.bmp


mikelayoutbmp.bmp


Any ideas? suggestions?

I'd be happy to email over my xtrkcad file for 'adjustments' by anyone
 
I like double track mains. When I build my N-scale layout in my office. It will have a double tack main (and no sidings.)

If you like your plan better, then it is the better plan.
 
Me too - I'm so happy I built a double main. You can have one consist running all the time on the outside then mess with the inside one at will.

Mark
 
Both plans have their merits, but I think the second one gets my vote (it has fewer customers, but it's easier to build, and it leaves lots of room for scenery that would make the layout feel very "natural").......with some very minor revisions. The revisions are shown in the pic. (Personally, I wouldn't double track, but thats just me.)

mikelayoutbmp.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a bit confused :confused: (normal state) In the upper drawing on the right side there is a circle of track marked helix to staging. Maybe I'm missing something but I can only see it connected to the hidden track at the bottom, that being the case if a train gets in there it'll have to back out or go around in circles. What's missing?
Maybe it's just me

Cheers Willis
 
well I didn't draw the staging on the upper drawing. Again, yes, the second one is cleaner and flows better, maybe I'll see if I can modify it for a double main....
 
I've messed with the second drawing and added nearly a full dual main. Should aid in the full running of a train allowing for road switching that would dodge the train running "through".

mikelayout1bmp.bmp
 
I think the second one has possibility, but I think you would do better to actually make it a double track main. Eliminate the places where you have two tracks go into one and back to two, and replace them with a crossover. Make one a left and one a right, and you'll be able to get from one track to the other and back easily.

Having a true double track allows you to run two trains at once, without having to actively "manage" them, great for times when you're showing off the layout or just want to let 'em roll. Alternately, you can switch on one track while the other track has a train running continuously.

Granted, not all layouts have to be double track, and single track layouts can often seem larger than double track ones because of the visual impact of two tracks, but as long as you're going to be this close to being double track, I'd go for it. (Or cut back a lot of it to single track as the alternative.)
 
Well, about time you revised the plan in accordance with my reccomendations, what took you so long? :)

(He posted his revised plan as I was composing my reply, which was essentially suggesting he do what he did...)
 
that's basically what was holding me back from setting the 2nd layout in the proverbial 'stone' for my plan, was that it was mostly single track.

So, with my revision of double track, I'm pretty sure I'm set :)
Should make for some nice operational stuff too, with a nice big staging yard down below!
 
OK, a couple of comments.

1) The complicated bit of track in the center of town serves absolutely no purpose I can see. Think like a real railroad for a moment. Mainline turnouts cost about $100,000 each to buy and install these days. That little 3 track piece uses 4 of them, or roughly $400k. What am I getting for all that money? A run-around so short it can barely accomodate 1 car?
 
I've looked at that and actually the inside main also acts as a yard lead, I think in that area I can make it so scenery is 'tight' around the tracks....and I've looked at how trains would dispatch to leave and go to the staging, and those oddly placed switches do help.

Plus, I think it'll just be fun :)

While I'm trying to be prototypical in industry, I'm not trying to be exactly prototypical in track design. This is a freelance with a few specific industries and train ideas, and region, but that's about it :D
 
OK, here's my version/suggestions. I got rid of that complex little area in the town. If you really want a third track there, make it longer, and put it outside of the two mains. You could certainly add a yard lead.

I modified the track in the back to allow true double track/continuous running. I also got rid of two crossovers, though you could put one back if you wanted.

I re-arranged the industrial track a bit, to add for more interest. You could put them at two different elevations, and the two leads would allow two trains to work at once.

Again, just my idea, there are no right or wrong answers, though some plans are more prototypical than others. It's your railroad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, if you want that third track, then put it in. But I'd do it like this for a couple of reasons...

1) The way you show it is way too short to be of much use. You can only get around a car or two.

2) It is highly reccomended, in both model and prototype practice, that the straight side of the turnout (switch) be the side you use the most. Forget prototype practice, this will significantly reduce derailments... My version is designed to have the straight side be the main track.

This version would also allow you to connect to both industrial areas (right and left side) from the front portion if you'd like, while still not having a curved side of the turnout on the main track. So it adds some flexibility.
 
chimmike said:
I've looked at how trains would dispatch to leave and go to the staging, and those oddly placed switches do help.
Click to expand...

Well yes, but don't make it TOO easy. Ask any railroader, there are always places you wish you had more turnouts or extra track or longer leads, or...

The realities of costs typically trump those considerations. The one exception is rapid transit lines, they often have a multitude of crossovers.

chimmike said:
Plus, I think it'll just be fun :)
:D
Click to expand...

OK, well there's the trump card. "Because it's my railroad and I want it that way" is a perfectly acceptable reason to do it whatever way you'd like. I'm just pointing out some ideas and options for consideration.
 
In either case you'll have to be cleaning track in horrible areas. That's something you never want to deal with, which is extensive hidden track.

Just my 2cents but having more than 75-99% of your track easily accessable will make it easier and less stressful.
 
I have access to the updated layout if anyone wants to mess around with it in xtrkcad and try to fix it.

I'm at work though, so I don't have the software with me.
 
Okay, so I redid it, made it a dual main solidly throughout, and some of the sidings, as well as the yard lead.
mikelayout11bmp.bmp


So, that looks better, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top