Back in the hobby with new layout

Mike,

Are you planning to add any industries along the mainlines? 

How about adding some staging tracks under one of the long sides?  You could gain access from the outside loop while in a tunnel.  You don't any long sidings (~7' max) so you train's length would be limited. 

Jan

Hi Mike,

I knew a Mike Miller. Railsplitter?

Hinged sections (or face to face "bascules") for the "blue bridges" over the gap. Light enough to lift easy. The bending, duck-walking, or crab-walking to gain access to the center will get old real fast. A few S curves without straights is about all I see to really whine about, but it wouldn't stop me.

Hi Mike,

I am with Jan regarding the yard. A couple of questions.

Have you looked at this in a 3D view?

Is the green object at 7 o'clock a passenger station?

The station would look better moved up to be completely on the straight. Both tracks could service it then.

The yard has limitations. Along with the length limiting the length of the train, the yard lead does also. I asked about viewing it in 3D because I think the yard will obscure the viewing of the passenger station and draw one's attention away from that entire area.

A couple of ideas came to mind...

elevate the area along the left\passenger station to change the view

move the yard to 5:30 and back into the opening off of the bottom right

move the yard and (future expansion, a roundhouse\turntable) to the peninsula(you have 9' off of the wye to work with)

It all depends on how you will operate. If you want to spend an hour or so in the yard without fouling the purple main you'll need to modify the design. If it will be storage for made trains and you go get them, then visible under the main level may work. A yard is visually appealing to me and deserves treatment as a layout design element, especially if you want to work in it.

Here is an article by Rich Melvin, that will provide some food for thought. Spend some time looking at photos of yards and their location on other layouts. 

It has the look of a very nice design. Don't be in hurry. More time spent now on design and planning will make the build go smoothly and the operation enjoyable.

Mike

You are doing a lot of things right.  So many people get stuck on the notion of a 4x8 in the middle of the room and they just expand that idea and create many, many problems in the process.  By choosing to go around the walls with a center peninsula you are maximizing the running distance for trains and maximizing the space for people at the same time.  The peninsula is nice visually, adds mainline running distance and provides a wye and reversing loop for turning locomotives or entire trains.  You have also kept your reach in distances to 30-36 inches and aisles at 28-36 inches minimum.  Those all all very good features and will make for a user friendly layout.

Looking at the variety of switches and curves I am guessing that you plan to build with Atlas track.  What locomotives and cars do you have or want to get?  The longest locomotives and cars will define your track spacing on curves. The 4 1/2 inch centers on Atlas curves were fine back in the 1990s but today we have some equipment that may not be compatible with an O-63, 72 and 81 environment.

Keep up the good work.  It looks like you have the start of a very enjoyable layout design.

Hello all,  thanks for you comments and suggestions.

Jan - I'm planning on adding a small refinery in the upper right corner.  The Delaware City refinery is about 10 miles from my home in DE, so I'd like to represent that.  Never considered staging tracks under the sidings.  Good idea. 

Moonman - never looked at it in 3D.  Yes, that's a passenger station at 7pm.  I like the idea of moving it up to the straight section & elevating it.  Agree about the yard obscuring the station, but moving the yard to 5:30 is a big design change.  I'll discuss this with my co-designer.     

Ted - yes, Atlas track and Ross switches.  I currently have no equipment.  Other than the biggest steamers (Big Boy's, Challengers, etc.), won't most loco's run on O-63 minimum ? 

Adriatic - am planning a lift bridge of some kind. 

Mike,

The more time you spend now will pay you back many fold in enjoyment later on.

Look at moving the station to the right side thus freeing up its space for the yard.  If the outer loops can descend on the left then you could lengthen the yard tracks.

Jan

Other than the biggest steamers (Big Boy's, Challengers, etc.), won't most loco's run on O-63 minimum ? 

Most scale articulated steam locomotives along with many scale electrics and even a few scale diesels require O-72.  You have done a good job of giving yourself O-72 or greater routes around the railroad.  However, you may encounter problems if you are running a large steam locomotive (like a Northern that may only require O-54) on your O-63 curves and have a long car trying to pass on the O-72.  A long boilered locomotive like a Northern will have significant overhang at the pilot and at the back corner of the cab on O-63.  A long car like a scale passenger car or a scale auto carrier will encroach on the inside of a curve.  That could be a problem depending on what cars and locomotives you want to run.

The Atlas 3 rail track system came on the market back in the late 1990s and it is based on 9 inch intervals in curve diameter.  That means 4 1/2 inch spacing from center rail to center rail on curves.  That worked fine in the early 90s when the defining equipment in 3 rail were scale Hudsons and 60 foot long passenger cars.  But the world of 3 rail O had already begun to change in the mid 90s when MTH introduced the scale Challenger.  Now we have several scale challengers (the MTH Northern Pacific Z-6 challenger has the most overhang), Yellowstones, Big Boys, scale electrics (the GN W-1 is the overhang King) Gas Turbines and a few monster diesels like the Baldwin Centipedes along with 84 foot passenger cars and 89 foot intermodal flat cars and auto racks.  Several of those combinations can cause you problems on O-72 inside of O-81.  Six inch track spacing on curves is the universal standard today for safe passage of all known combinations of locomotives and cars.

If you want to be able to operate any combination of 3 rail O equipment you have some decisions to make.  Six inch track spacing means O-72 and O-84.  Atlas flex track is not easy to work with.  I would only recommend using their sectional track for most of a layout and restrict use of the flex track to short custom curves.  However, most people can get good results from Gargraves flex track.  You may want to consider Gargraves/Ross unless you want to accept the limitations of 4 1/2 inch track spacing.

I like the layout. If your going to run large articulated scale engines like Big Boys just bear in mind that the over hang they have "might" run into scenery or buildings. Your Peninsula is  interesting as long as You don't run long 30+ car trains where the engine hits the tail on the return. I do like your design, keep us posted,

I like the design.  I am trying something similar - three loop main - but in a more narrow space.  I can't add the center island.

There are other work arounds to the clearance issues on the curves.   Start with a 6 inch spacing on the parallel straights and just "extend" the straight into each major curve.  This would work in the three major corner sections. Or another option is to go with some easement curves to broaden the curve.  Start and end each major corner curve with a larger curve than your desired minimum.  Sometimes folks recommend going two sizes up - so an 0

72 minimum would be 090,072,072,090.

In your case I might try a full 072 inner loop followed by a loop with an easement of 090, 081,081,090.  That may give you the spacing you need for clearance. 

Have Fun!

I've suggested to Mike that he see if his designer will post the RR-Track file so those of us using RR-Track can do some measuring to see what the clearances actually are. Given the 12" grid, it does look like there are 3 tracks inside about a 9" space (outside rail to outside rail). If that's the case, I set up a quick test with 2 tracks 9" apart and a 3rd track in the middle. I get a center-to-center rail measurement of around 3.80" for all 3 tracks. Given what I've read here, that may work okay on the straights sections, but could be problematic for 2 steamers, even smaller ones like 4-6-0, meeting on the curves. Am I right?

Hello All,

Per several requests I have attached the RR-Track file for consideration in assessing the center to center rail spacing.  I really appreciate those who have the knowledge to make this determination.  I hope this works out satisfactory for the current design. 

Thanks to all for their assistance. 

Mike  

I did some quick checks for minimum distances. I mostly checked the right side because those appear to be the closest, but the lower left are similarly close. The center-to-center rails in the curves/straights appear to be around 4" and the "near" rail-to-rail appear to be around 2.75". I'm not qualified to state that these are too close, so I'll leave that up to someone who is.

Great plan. My version of RRT won't open your file. Could you explain what the different colors of track signify? Where do you plan to put the control center? Thanks.

          John

John,

The black track has a minimum radius of 072.  The pink track has a minimum radius of I believe of either 054 or 063.  I haven't thought much about a control panel at this point as I plan to use MTH DCS hand held remote.    

FWIW, I assume it's a v5 file sine it opened just fine for me using v5.1. I had to fix a slight misalignment on the outside track in the upper right to the left of the switch. I was then able to run a simulation and things ran well. I parked a large steamer just heading into the lower right middle track curve and then ran another train in the opposite direction past it. Although I didn't collide, I don't know how accurate the simulation really is. I have been able to park a train too close to a switch and force a collision of sorts where the program asked if I wanted to couple the engines, but that might not be the same as a collision because tracks are too close.