Jeff, I thoroughly enjoyed this thread, all of your friends comments, everybody so positive and supportive. New home nearer to the family is what its all about in the long run, and it is hard to improve on that...but you will. Just add a few trains and right back to it! Start small, an oval around the tree works wonders.
Good luck in the new house.
Jeff, I’m glad you are moved in. No matter how much you plan, you have to take time to figure it all out!
TPRR Configuration Ideas - I am noodling ideas on how to get some of my wants in a less than ideal space. For this iteration I want to figure out how best to layout a passenger terminal on a lower level. The terminal and town would be built over the track. I know backing a train down a slope is not ideal but unless you can figure out how to get more space - I think I am stuck.
I would love to get full length trains on each departure rail but it looks like the best I can do is 5 cars plus an AA or ABA set. Steamers are a little shorter so are less of an issue. Looking for 8 tracks but can settle for less, but not less than 100 inches per departure track. Sidings for extra cars and engines is a plus. All my equipment is scale. MTH cars are 18 inches +/- , my Weaver Milwaukee Road Hiawatha's are 20.
I keep thinking there must be better ways to layout out yards. This is entirely new to me so any insights are helpful. Curves are all 072 Dia.
This is one possible option. The entire left side of the room is open, the rest are immovable walls. The left side is attractive because I would be able to see all the passenger cars. The downside is it would have to be a crawl under - not my favorite. NOTE: I would have an expanded space between pairs of cars for passenger walkways.
Initial options.
I like option one for yard, kinda line what gunrunner did….I am trying to do something similar off my outside loop…..the length is somewhat disappointing cause like you, I wanted to just park a consist, drop one off pick one up, and you need to have one open all the time to drop off before you pick up…enjoying your thread and am learning a bunch
I like the first one also since it should be easier to access the tracks since the left side of the plan is open.
Personally, I prefer the station location where the track heads in to the alcove because you will never get any mainline track in there. An O72 half-circle just will not fit. HOWEVER, as far as I can tell, use of that alcove plus O72 curves, in the current configuration, leaves your station tracks at the minimum of 100 inches. Five cars plus just one engine will not fit without fouling the yard throat. Use of curved switches might make this option more viable.
On the other hand, with your passenger station and tracks along the long straight wall, you should be able to get 5 cars and an engine on each track without fouling the throat. You also might be able to get both your intermodal yard and grain elevator into the alcove. This would also allow you to put all the switches for the throat on a lift-up piece making for easy egress to the middle of the layout.
Just some thoughts.
Chuck
Keep the ideas coming. Due to space and access needs, here is a little more track planning. Could get a freight yard in the lower level. The alcove could get a shortened version of an intermodal and grain terminal. Thinking a switcher could build a consist and bring it to a yard lead for the main line engines. A layout access point could be installed on the left. Interconnect switches, sidings, etc need to be considered. Not fond of the plain double oval, but ...
That’s a bit of a run from the mainline, but I like it. You know I’m not as imaginative as you, Jeff!
When laying out your passenger station area, remember to leave sufficient space between the tracks for passenger and freight platforms. Those will also have to be wide enough for walkways up to the terminal / street level. That said, you moved everything against a solid wall; watch your reach.
Chuck
Jeff, that alcove is just begging for track. Don’t be too quick to have a finalized plan. It will begin to unfold when you aren’t concentrating on the plan.
Jay
Mark, this is just an exercise in what if. The entire length from the exit curve of the yard to the turnout at the main has grades no more than 2.5%, close to the turnout it flattens out. The vertical gain is 7 1/2 inches. I am not in love with backing down that distance, but it will be pretty cool to see the SP 4449 Daylight, Milwaukee Road Hiawatha (x2), Santa Fe F3s, N&W 611, Pennsy GG1, Great Northern F3s pulling that long way out to the mainline. Yes I am fond of passenger sets, but they pose a special problem due to their length at scale. Toss in my D&RG Railking Passenger set and I am at 8.
I am looking over an old "101 Track Plan" book by Westcott I got about 1971. I am fond of the folded loops which tend to give longer running times, before returning to the origin. And have plenty of opportunity for scenery.
@PRR1950 yep on the clearance. I like to photograph/video the engines and layout so having access to various vantage points is important to me. Much of the lower area will be open grid so I should be able to access anything from below. On the other hand I may try to leave 14 to 16 inches between the wall and benchwork top and bottom for access. One looks possible, both look not! --- On TPRR 1 I used about 3 inches between cars for a passenger platform. That seemed to be wide enough.
So - I suppose the real question is whether to highlight a passenger terminal and surrounding city, or just bag all that and focus on scenery and long running trains with a mix of industries for interest. Staging and yards can all be below deck.
Jeff, yes you do need that distance to get down to that level. I know you have passenger trains you want to run. That sounds like a priority to me, but you are in early stages of planning
Ok everyone, I got to thinking about the double oval and how "blah" that would be. So I pulled out my ancient copy of 101 and Track Plans and came across this Wescott offering. Surprisingly with some adaptation it fits in my available space and has room to spare for long sidings and well as a long track to access the lower level yard this all started with. (Troy and Mohawk Valley RY)
I think the passenger city terminal idea goes away but the passengers would see nice scenery. Minimum curves are 072 with a bunch of 080 and 088 sweeping curves added where space allowed. If the lower level yard works like I think it can, the yard can be pull through.
I can work in a parallel main on the upper level. Because this is a crawl under, I need to figure out how big the pop ups will be. I'll have to raise the deck so it won't be a pain to crawl under for access. Including access to the lower level yard.
Amazingly I was able to run the train simulator on the finished layout and it worked!! There are a couple of clearance issues that need to be addressed, but should not be too difficult. As drawn there was 7.5 inches vertical for clearance. No grade was more than 2.5%.
Jeff, Lynn Westcott had some great plans in 101 and Track Plans. I have a copy I got in the late ‘60s. It is well worn.
This plan looks like a fun plan to run trains on.
Well stuff happens, the space I thought I had is not going to work. Back to the drawing board. Now down to a rough 12x13 space.
Here is a possible reconfiguration of TPRR2 in a tighter space. The idea is to keep the inside open (yellow) for access and running trains. The inner yard would be connected to the double main line. A feeder track would descend to provide access to a lower lever passenger station yard - no more than 30 inches wide and about 7 - 8 inches below the upper level. Main lines are 080 and 072 curves. lower level access is 072 minimum. The inner industrial yard is 042. I am not super happy with the length needed for the wye, may ditch them for longer yard track and a return for a switcher. As drawn there would be about 30 inches in length to each yard track - only enough for 2 cars. The alcove at the top right will be for storage so a minimum 24 inch aisle is needed across the top along the 188 space. I can grab a few inches here and there, but not feet. Just thinking out loud. Comments appreciated, especially for the inner yard configuration. I think we have a decent idea on creating the passenger yard with curved turnouts leading into the yard and a gentle decline into the passenger area. A long backing down hill operation but should be manageable. I would also add a passing track somewhere along the main and staging for engines if necessary. Might use Mark's idea for an engine area with a wye turnout.
On the other hand it could be reduced to 8x13 to leave access around the layout but cram as much as possible leaving no free inner space.
Jeff, I’m sorry you have less space available. Your concept makes sense, though I agree the wye doesn’t leave much room for yard tracks. I like your file name that has oops as a part! At least you are keeping a sense of humor after realizing you have less space to work with. It can be disheartening as I well know.
Jeff- sorry to hear that space has been lost to other needs.......
Since you need to maintain a walkway along the top, why not eliminate the center walkways and do a pop up to access the back? Are you married to the double loops? A folded dog bone or folded figure 8 could allow for a long mainline and give you space for yards, etc. A reversing loop might be fit as well. I haven't looked at anything in SCARM to see what fits.
just my $.02......
Bob
That’s unfortunate Jeff that it’s not working out as you planned. You had been so looking forward to the move and the new layout. Just to flesh it out in reality, perhaps mark off the floor with painters tape and do some measurements. Then you can play with some pieces of various curves to give you a perspective. The important thing is- you’re going to have a layout.
Jay
Jeff, just some food for thought. I don't think there's a way to do what you want in the new space, so I played around a bit.
I played with several versions of a yard to fit your peninsula and the one of the far right offers the most storage. However, they all suffer from the closeness of the turnouts, so storage is less than what's shown. Note the 4.8% grade to get down tot he lower level and be able to go under the upper level track. It'd be a little less than that because I have it going from 7.5" down to 0" when it actually only needs to go to 1"-1.5". The point is it's probably going to be steeper than you want. I also don't know how you expect to go down to passenger tracks and then get back up, so I decided to see what kind of yard I could fit on the lower left.
This removes the peninsula, changes the inner loop to O-72, puts the station above the siding and keeps the yard. I see no way to connect the blue and orange tracks.
HI all, regarding the space, I was looking forward to a nice long 18 to 22 foot run with TPRR2. The first two homes we bought had the space. This 3rd one showed a similar length until it became apparent the basement area drawing were way off. Total square footage was correct so no real alternative than going through with the purchase and the CEO would have flipped out anyway. All in all glad to be out of Illinois and starting a new phase. If we stay here I have a couple of alternatives, if not well the current space will not matter.
With 72 inch Dia curves, I need about 13 x 7 just to make a figure 8 or to incorporate reversing tracks. So given the space restrictions it is just not workable IMO, so no point in exploring that further. So I have roughly a 12x13 space to work with. I am using Westcott's building methods so each track will have its own roadbed, no full expanse of plywood, except in the yards. I have never built this way, but should be straightforward enough. It appears it will be much easier to set the grades with this method than the 2x4 on top of plywood I used previously. Made making changes really challenging.
Dave, the yard entry track will extend beyond the double main entering somewhere in the top left of the plan. I may have to elevate the double main a bit to get clearance in order to avoid more than 2.8% down grades. According to SCARM this should be doable. As built the first bench has 40 inches of clearance from floor to bottom of beams - much better than the 28 inches I had with TPRR1. The inner loop track will be at nearly the same height as the main so should not be an issue connecting. I think it showed up at 0 with the double at 7 - yes those would be a challenge to connect. Looking at it, I will probably have to flip the terminal to end toward the top. Since I'll do a duck under starting the downgrade at the top will keep the 40 inch clearance. I do not see doing lift outs, although I may try a roll out, given the modular build I am attempting.
So yes I was expecting and planning for a much larger space and did not get it. So its work with what I have and make the best of it. Then get the trains running to get Ryan and Logan back "playing trains". That's what its all about anyway. But I still want a larger layout. I probably have only 20 to 30 years left to get it done - time to get busy. ; )
I do have to relate a story - my backpacking and camping buddy recently had a cancer diagnosis but after further testing, verified there was in fact no cancer. In the course of discussions his doc asked him about "checking out" when the time came. He responded he wanted a Niagara Falls death. Of course the doc thought than meant he would hurt himself, but the meaning was instead, "I would rather go like a bat out of **** and then fall off the cliff and check out quickly, than do the slow decline bit". While that would be my preference as well, I don't think we get to choose, except maybe to maintain a "healthy" lifestyle and avoid doing really stupid stuff. Just a relief to know the docs were wrong.
Have a great, healthy and prosperous New Year everyone. And Go ILLINI !
From my family to yours
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
