Looking for any input on a new track plan I am looking at building. It will be set in the Black Hills of SD. The layout will DCC and will have 3 primary locomotives. A pair of 2-8-0s and a 4-6-0 for passenger service. The layout is slightly longer than a HCD at 30"x90". The maximum grade is approximately 2.75%. Thanks in advance
I like it. I do have a few observations/issues, however. First, I'd be very concerned about access to the loops of track that lie directly under the tracks above. In addition to access problems, I wonder if there will be adequate support for the visible track that has hidden tracks underneath. The passing siding along the front, just right of center, looks to be too short to be useful. I'd also move the passing siding from the midpoint of the line to the upper loop, near the mines. Finally, I might suggest doing away with the switchback at the sidings in the front center area; I'd just have two sidings branch off of the main there.
Very short passing / runaround tracks. Will you have access to all sides? Up against a wall? Which side(s) against which wall(s)? Seems like you're primary goal is to have a couple of trains on the layout and run them? (as opposed to having trains come from & go to somewhere?
Without addressing the issue of operational goals, given the existing plan as the starting point, here's how I'd address the problems I cited... This assumes you have access to all sides, so you can get to the hidden trackage from the edges of the layout. If not, the plan may need to be redesigned from the ground up. Access is paramount, and if the top edge is against a wall, then you'll have difficulty getting to all of the switches along that side.
hi gentlemen, also David's plan has a few issues. We do not know the OP's possibilities regarding access, nor about the wanted minimum radius and maximum grade. As far as possible for me right now I guess the minimum radius as drawn is 11, which is quite small for ful length passenger equipment. Getting the incline from the crossing up to the passing siding at the upper level on David's drawing will need more length then is provided for, unless it is acceptable to have the upper passing siding on a grade. IMHO the OP should rethink his wishes or be more specific about his druthers. Anyway 3 trains on a layout this small is asking to much when no provision for staging or a larger yard is made. Trainlength is very short indeed on the OP's first plan, though those passing sidings can be lengthened rather easily. Wish you luck Paul
The layout is essentially a point to point with reversing loops at each end and I do not believe there is any way to accomplish the height changes in the given distances. But it is an interesting layout ...
Assuming the OP is running short trains and small old-style coaches for passenger service, the plan will work. Minimum radius is 11" and maximum grade is 2.8%. Not ideal but certainly doable, and the lengthened passing sidings can still remain level. Certainly appropriate for a backwoods-style steam-era Black Hills line, and quite close to the OP's target grade of 2.75%. I have updated the plan I posted with track elevations to show how it can be done--just refresh the page if you don't see the numbers. (Incidentally, it does help to use software to determine what's possible or not, versus one's eye.) I do agree there are some limitations with respect to operation, especially with three trains and no staging. I added a few more sidings to provide more things to do, but it may still really be suited for only two trains.
First off, Thank you all for the great input. Second, I would like to apologize for the lack of initial information I provided. The railroad will be set in the Balck Hills of SD as a shortline with connection to the CB&Q. It will be set in the 1920's-30's and I will be using 36-40' freight cars and shorty heavyweight passenger cars. The freight trains will be between 3-6 cars and the passenger train will be 2 of the shorty heavyweights. My intent is to run trains through nice scenery and have the ability for some switching opportunities. A river will run throught the layout somewhere between the 2-3' marks on the layout plan. I intend for a trestle at the center crossing and the upper most track with cross with a through truss bridge. The layout will be DCC. The hidden curve on the right side is 12.5" radius and the outer loop on the left side is 12" with the inner passing track at 10.5" radius. Looking at my plan I see I can increase the inner radius slightly. I am looking at running 2 trains at a time. The lower right hand track is ment for interchange with the CB&Q and as possible extention to a staging yard/layout extention in the future. The lower left tracks are ment for an engine facility. Here's a copy of the current version of the layout plan with all the input I have recieved. EDIT - For access to hidden tracks I plan on putting facia on all for sides and using access holes on the sides and back cut in the facia. The layout with have the top of the plan against a wall with the table capable of being moved should the need arise to get into the center hidden track. Let me know what you think.
I like your revisions, but would encourage you to incorporate the longer siding David used on the mine entrance at the back. It'll make life easier in the long run as you will be able to switch that industry and allow a train to roll by on the main. Secondly, we should work out an interchange plan or a car exchange. My RR is the Northern Pacific and Black Hills running from Belle Fourche to Cedar Creek, MT via Ekalaka, MT. Set in the 20's and running NP and CNW/FEMV equipment. The Black Hills get entirely too little press for the railroading in there! There is a short thread in this board on my existing practice layout. Keep up the planning! It's real helpful, but when you get to building don't fret if it comes together a bit differently!
Thanks! My only problem with the runaround in the back is that I have to have a bridge there and don't think I will have the room for two side by side with it so close to the edge of the layout.
Having the passing siding on the curve like that means it'll be on a grade, and that will make it just about useless for any switching maneuvers. Two tracks at the back doesn't mean two bridges side-by-side, but just one double-track bridge. An alternative is to re-route the river to the left, under the single-track curve, instead of bisecting the layout with it. Also, I'd still ditch the switchback at center front. It serves no purpose other than to make the sidings too short to be of any use.
The thing you need to consider with that is how often will one train have to wait for the other to get out of the way. In the ideal world, and the most enjoyable setup for a layout, a train never has to stop for another train while it is switching industries or a yard and vice versa. While David's track plan isn't perfect in that regard, it is still a step in the right direction considering the limitations of a folded dog bone.
Thanks everyone for the input. Now it's time to take down the old layout and begin construction on the new one.
I've gotten started on the new build and here are some progress pictures. The lower level is installed, wired and tested with the exception of the town spurs. Since these pictures were taken I have started up the first grade with track.
