My N Scale Track Plan

[Athlon]

It's not pretty, but you can make some geography changes with SCARM using figures.

Thanks for the tips - I'll give it a try.

Now that you have changed the direction of the top set of yards so that it leaves the main line in a clockwise direction like all the other sidings the reverse loop isnt critical. You can now travel the mainline in a anti-clockwise direction and back into every siding, so it functions without it, but its still an interesting feature to have.
What everyone has been saying about having a hidden siding is valid not only for derailments but also so you can glance at a turnout and see which way it is set. If it cant be seen you need to wire up an indicator to tell you how the turnout is set.

I like the reverse loop idea, but I'm wrestling with the tunnel now. I agree with you all about the negatives that switch in there can cause.

Three options I've come up with:

1) Move the yard just to it's right a bit to the right and use a view block between the 'tunnel' switch and that yard rather than cover it.

2) Move the tunnel entrance above the switch.

3) Eliminate the reverse loop.

 

[Athlon]

Here's a screenshot of my option#2.

I don't like it. I liked the idea of one entrance and two exits, as well as hiding the second 'large' curve on the layout.

By the way - moving the top yard to the right has really made the plan 'snap' for me. What a difference! Thank you again for that idea.

 

[Athlon]

Here's a couple of screenshots of my option #1 (showing access to the switch):

 

[TrainboyH16-44]

Here's what I think:

Shorten the tunnel at the top to about halfway down the left side, and put the runaround there with an industry branching off.

I don't really like the set of 3 sidings at bottom left, as it's too many tracks for a small industry or set of industries, but it's also far too short to be a yard. Maybe try fiddling to get a more interesting and challenging track arrangement?

 

[Athlon]

I don't really like the set of 3 sidings at bottom left, as it's too many tracks for a small industry or set of industries, but it's also far too short to be a yard. Maybe try fiddling to get a more interesting and challenging track arrangement?

Like this? I don't have a lot of room there to do much.........

 

[otiscnj]

Couple of things:

1. Add some passing sidings. They add operational flexibility, + scenic interest.
2. In the real world, railroads have a purpose. Have you given any thought or do you have any preferences regarding prototype railroads or locations? Often times, its most successful if you model something you know, even if its thousands of miles away.
3. From a scenic standpoint, rather than having the river cut across the end of the table, how about having run the diagonal, with a mainline or sidings on both sides-this is very common in the real world. Competing lines often are located on the opposite side of rivers/streams/etc.
4. Building a railroad in the real world costs lots of money. If you're going to have a sweeping curved line leading to 2 industrial sidings, and have a tunnel in the vicinity, why not plan to put the industries on the hill, above the tunnel. Adds some scenic and operational interest.

 

[Athlon]

Couple of things:

1. Add some passing sidings. They add operational flexibility, + scenic interest.
2. In the real world, railroads have a purpose. Have you given any thought or do you have any preferences regarding prototype railroads or locations? Often times, its most successful if you model something you know, even if its thousands of miles away.
3. From a scenic standpoint, rather than having the river cut across the end of the table, how about having run the diagonal, with a mainline or sidings on both sides-this is very common in the real world. Competing lines often are located on the opposite side of rivers/streams/etc.
4. Building a railroad in the real world costs lots of money. If you're going to have a sweeping curved line leading to 2 industrial sidings, and have a tunnel in the vicinity, why not plan to put the industries on the hill, above the tunnel. Adds some scenic and operational interest.

Thanks for your input.

1) I don't have a lot of room in just 30", but I'll try.

2) Not much thought yet. Again, I'm leaving room for that with the areas on the inside. I plan to build this thing in stages, staring with the outside mainline first. I need to get trains rolling to keep my interest alive. As for what I'll put along the sidings and yards in the middle areas it will likely be related to my area of the world - New England. I can always adjust that stuff slightly in the middle areas as I go....

3) Not sure what you mean by 'run the diagonal' with a river. Do I have enough room for a river with a main on each side of it? Do you mean sort of a double main with a river between?

4) I don't have any tracks above other tracks. I tried that in an earlier plan I had, but ran into two issues. One was getting the track up quick enough to go over the other was creating very steep grades. The other was going to be access to the lower tracks.

I'm re-thinking the turnout in the tunnel, by the way. Perhaps if I want to keep a reverse loop I can figure out a way to incorporate that with your additional siding idea.

 

[Athlon]

@otiscnj:

More thoughts on your thoughts

I already have some rolling stock - stuff I've been collecting over the last 8 or 9 years and have never run.

Mostly I have some ACF 4 bay hoppers, 11000 gallon tanker cars, and some beer can cars. I also have a few assorted box cars and gondolas.

For the hoppers I'll have a grain facility. For the tankers I'll have an LP gas facility and for the beer cans I'll be putting syrup in those. There's a facility that does that about 8 miles from my (real life) house.

Here's my latest plan, now with a double main and different river. I eliminated two things, the reverse loop and the nasty switch in the tunnel.

Trains will run counter clockwise.

I'm considering whether or not to eliminate the 'crossover' at the bottom and forcing the train to run a longer distance to get from the inside to the outside.

Have I added too much track? Is 'less' actually 'more'?

 

[TrinityJayOne]

I don't think it's too much track at all, and once you add scenery it will look like you have even less.

I'd leave the crossover at the bottom, because if you remove it then your trains have no way to get from the inner loop to the outer loop without reversing. You might also want to consider moving it to back onto the other crossover as this is generally how the prototype does it, if that's something that interests you.

 

[Athlon]

I don't think it's too much track at all, and once you add scenery it will look like you have even less.

I'd leave the crossover at the bottom, because if you remove it then your trains have no way to get from the inner loop to the outer loop without reversing. You might also want to consider moving it to back onto the other crossover as this is generally how the prototype does it, if that's something that interests you.

Thanks! I moved it. That is something I would not have noticed for a long while, I suspect!

Here it is now..........

 

[Athlon]

I have a concern about the route below in red (enlarged from the top of my plan near the proposed Passenger Station).

Is the 'S' turn something I should be concerned with? It's the only one I could find on the plan.

My trains will be running counter-clockwise and the track will be Atlas code 55 N Scale.

 

[Cjcrescent]

As long as you don't run through the crossovers at warp speed, there shouldn't be any problems.

I have quite a few crossovers on my layout, and have yet to experience a derailment because of the S-curve through them. This includes any of my cars, from 34' hoppers to 85' passenger cars.

 

[Athlon]

As long as you don't run through the crossovers at warp speed, there shouldn't be any problems.

I have quite a few crossovers on my layout, and have yet to experience a derailment because of the S-curve through them. This includes any of my cars, from 34' hoppers to 85' passenger cars.

No warping here! Thanks!

I was concerned about the 12.5" radius heading into the crossover.

 

[Athlon]

Here's my latest version.......

I've added to the Westboro yard and increased the length of the passing siding leading to the sugar refinery and paper plant.

I'll be starting the benchwork soon!

 

[otiscnj]

If you flip the switch leading to the Sand and Gravel, & Furniture factory to a left from a right, and add some 1/3/ or 1/2 curves to your yard tracks near the switches, you could make your yard tracks a little bit longer.

You might also be able to add a cross over by Helen fuels, to give you a little more flexibilty, operationally.

Not really sure what the double track does for you, leading to the paper plant & sugar refinery.

 

[waltr]

Getting a loco in/out of the engine shed will require keeping the three lead tracks almost clear and you'll need to run the zig-zag. Not sure what can be done but I'd try to find a better solution.

I might put a single cross over just below the turn-out from Hellen's fuels between the two main tracks.

Keep working on it as it is looking pretty good.

 

[Athlon]

If you flip the switch leading to the Sand and Gravel, & Furniture factory to a left from a right, and add some 1/3/ or 1/2 curves to your yard tracks near the switches, you could make your yard tracks a little bit longer.

You might also be able to add a cross over by Helen fuels, to give you a little more flexibilty, operationally.

Not really sure what the double track does for you, leading to the paper plant & sugar refinery.

The long double track there grew out of a short passing siding I had to the left of the engine shed. The more I look at it, the more I agree that I'll put it back to the shorter length.

I had a crossover at that spot near Hellen's and removed it to force me to run the train longer to get to the other track. But your use of the word 'flexibility' is making me put it back. I can always ignore it!

As for Westboro, I need to play with it some more for sure........

Getting a loco in/out of the engine shed will require keeping the three lead tracks almost clear and you'll need to run the zig-zag. Not sure what can be done but I'd try to find a better solution.

I might put a single cross over just below the turn-out from Hellen's fuels between the two main tracks.

Keep working on it as it is looking pretty good.

Thanks for the encouragement! I'll post my changes soon......

 

[Athlon]

OK - I put the crossing back in near Hellen's.

I shortened the passing siding that wrapped around past the lumber yard.

And Westboro yard now has almost 50% more track, and my engines will use a lot less fuel getting to the shed.

Thank you very much for your input!! I will be starting on the benchwork soon, and when I do I'll create another thread and show pictures of my progress.

 

[Athlon]

Plan A or Plan B?

I hope I'm not pestering you with too many questions........

When I start to lay down track, I plan to do the outside mainline first so I can run a train. Then I'll do the inside main, then Westboro and then each industry.

So, I want to have at least the mainline 'etched in stone' before I start.

Currently I have it down to Plan A or Plan B.

Plan A's feature all along was to try and not follow the edge of the benchwork as much as possible. That's the reason for the dip at the top when coming around from the right.

In Plan B I don't do that, and the result is a much larger Westboro Yard and more room for some of the industries.

I think I prefer Plan B, but I would like to hear your thoughts.......

Thank you!

 

[Burlington Bob]

Plan B for me. Longer yard, looks like a little longer mainline and tracks parallel to the edge don't bother me much.