The Alma & Jupiter Bay Railway

I’ve been a Trainboard member for a number of years with a layout thread in the O scale section. We are downsizing and moving to a new home that doesn’t have room for O. I will be able to build a 3 x 10 foot N scale layout. It will probably be between 2 and 4 months before we can move into the new home so I’m using the time to plan the new layout.

The N scale A&JB will use Kato Unitrack. I’ve used it in the past and like it a lot. I’m not sure if I will go DC or DCC. I have a Lenz system but like the simplicity of DC. I have time to make this over before making a decision.

This is a first draft track plan. The green is the lower level double track where 2 mainline trains can run. The red is the upper level. The 2 spurs at the top are interchange tracks. The spurs on the inner loop are various industries. I envision a local passenger train on the outer loop with a station located on the lower middle to right side serving the town on the right side. A local freight would work the interchange and industrial tracks.

Right now I’m thinking CSX and Amtrak from 2000 on, or my old favorite, the New York Central from 1945 to 1965, or maybe both schemes.

Here’s the plan. Any suggestions are welcome.

 

Will you use any kind of view block in the middle of the layout?

The curves are sharp, and especially so for the tracks in red. Something to consider. It does allow continuous running though if you desire that. Consider if the curves are too sharp for the passenger equipment - operationally and also visually.

 

You will be fine with the curves Joe. My inner curves are the 20-120 and this how they look with passenger equipment and have been pretty much able to run whatever I wanted. I originally was going to do a hollow core 3' x 6'8" but decided to go for the extra foot wide and long. I kept the same basic original plan I had and didn't enlarge the curves, instead just added some straight. I admit I would like bigger radius curves but you work with the space you have and do what's best.

 

The top and right side of the layout will be against walls. The only viewing area will be the bottom side so a view block won’t work. Continuous running is important to me. I enjoy having 2 or 3 trains loop running while 1 is switching industries.

I’m pretty sure I can change the red curves to 12.4 and 13.75 inch radius with minor changes. I know from experience that Kato passenger cars will easily navigate 12.4” curves.

Thanks for the photo BNSF FAN. To my eyes the cars look fine on those curves. That’s a super nice Amtrak train. 2 engines and 8-10 Superliners makes a cool train.

 

I agree @BNSF FAN. I too am space constrained, so accepted Kato 282mm radius (11.1") and 315mm radius (12.4") to allow a track plan that would bring me some operational enjoyment. The 11.1" curves are inside mountains, so the problem of their appearance is inconsequential. Two exposed curves match your 12.4" and per your photo, passenger cars look okay on them. My Amtrak train will be two or three Amfleet cars. Mine's a small freelance regional, so large and long freight equipment isn't found on my roster. In any case, layout reliability has been excellent so far.

 

I changed the trackplan to use 12.4" radius and 13.75" radius curves on the upper mainline. The lower green tracks will enter a tunnel on both the left and right sides that runs along the top (back) of the layout.



I like this plan idea though it can still be tweaked a bit. I think it will make a fun layout, however I have an idea for a completely different trackplan that I will be working on. If it works out I'll post it here.

 

I like it Joe! Any plan to connect the green and the red lines or am I missing it?

 

You haven’t missed anything BNSF FAN. The 2 lines are not connected. The red line is 3” above the green line. My thinking is that the green line is just to keep 2 mainline trains running. The red line is almost a separate layout where I can enjoy some switching. I sometimes just want to watch the trains run and the green line allows 4 trains to run rather than 2.

I plan on working with the track planning program to see if I have enough room to connect the two lines. I also have a couple of completely different ideas I want to try to see if they’ll work in my available space.

 

Just an observation. You may want to put some clear plexi or something on the long sides as the green is quite close to the edge. Something that will prevent a dive off the deep end if the layout gets bumped.

 

You might want to leave an open space in the middle of the layout if part of it is going to be up against walls so that you can have access to it. Murphy's Law dictates that in accessible parts of the pike have frequent derailments, electrical problems, and track going out of gauge. This happens even if the inaccessible part of the pike is straight and level with no joints.

 

That’s good advice, Brokemoto. It’s wise to plan for the unexpected. I’m planning on putting sliders under the leveling feet so I can slide the layout away from the wall to work on the sides against walls and to solve any problems. I’ve never used sliders and I’m hoping they work as advertised.

 

For reference, most dining tables are ~30 - 32" high, while kitchen counters are typically 36" high. How high your layout is, and how tall you are, has a lot to do with maximum reach. But dexterity is limited at maximum reach too, so while retrieving errant locos & railcars from the rear of the layout may be possible, re-railing them back there is probably not.

I would include Unitrack grade crossing tracks in the lower, rear tracks, just inside tunnel entrances, etc., since they have built-in re-railers. The ramp 'wings' are removable, with the center piece no wider than standard Unitrack pieces.

All but one of your inner spurs are trailing point except one (assuming predominantly clockwise travel on the inner loop.) That means you would need to have a run-around to service the one track, so you can get the engine to the other end of a cut of cars to push them onto the spur. Sure, you could use the two double crossovers, but that makes for a very long run-around (and backing move). If you replace the double xover in front with opposing single xovers at each end, that gives you a nice run-around space to serve opposite point spurs, not matter from which direction the train is running.

Many local trains served all the trailing point spurs on the way out, then swapped ends with loco and caboose, and served all the remaining (now trailing point) spurs on the way back.

You might think about joining the two interchange spurs at the rear with a siding between them, forming a double ended siding between the two spurs, so you could stage an entire train ready to intermittently join & leave the traffic on the mainline(s). The resulting back-back switches at each end of said siding could be replaced with single crossovers for reduced cost (compared to four separate switches, and increased siding/spur length (compared to two back-back #6 switches at each end.) The single crossovers also have single levers (and wired controls) for both switches in each crossover, since it never makes sense for the two switches not to be thrown in unison. The double crossovers have four independent coils and slider/levers, even though they too could/should always be thrown in unison.

Also, one double crossover between inner/outer mainline loops can be left in the crossing position, forming a twice-around loop, instead of two independent, once-around loops. This would also lengthen the run from the interior spurs at front, to the interior spur at the rear.

Lots of options on running a layout like that!

 

Thanks for the excellent suggestions, Andy. I’m going to modify the plan incorporating them.

 

Here is the next version based on Andy's suggestions.

 

Sorry, been on the road getting back from a vacation (if that's what you call it when your retired?)

Yeah, that looks good!

Don't forget the re-railer tracks (Unitrack grade crossings, sans the ramps) on hidden tracks at entrances/exits. You might install them a little ways into the tunnel so they're better hidden from view.

 

Looking at the green line (passenger trains?) What era are your passenger trains and layout going to be? If modern era, you may want to consider building it out of doubletrack Unitrack, with concrete ties, but super-elevated [slightly banked] curves.

The broader curves available in doubletrack Unitrack could really make a passenger train with long cars look its best! And even if it's steam era, you could model it as a modern-day scenic train using period equipment on newer (cheaper in real-life) track that requires less maintenance.

Or you could always take a black magic marker to the concrete ties!

 

Andy, I didn’t forget about the re-railer tracks, I just didn’t add them to the plan. I think using them in the tunnel is a great idea.

I plan to run CSX from 2000 to the present with Amtrak for passenger service so the concrete tie double track will work. I’m working on a new plan using the double track.

Thanks for the suggestions. They are very helpful.

 

We are 3 to 4 months away from moving into our new house so I can’t start building a new layout but the N scale A&JB officially started today. My wife and I took a drive to visit a train store that carries quite a bit of N scale in Melbourne, Florida, about an hour away. They had a lot of Kato and other N scale trains, track, buildings, scenery, etc. Lots of good stuff.

I found a starter set with an FEC ES44 and, being a Floridian I couldn’t resist. They also had both engines, 801 and 805 in the locomotive case. I wanted to buy 805 since the set box shows engine 801 but the proprietor told me the set could include either engine. We looked in the box and 805 was in the set so I bought 801 to go with it. The A&JB now has 2 locomotives, 6 Japanese freight cars with North American markings, track and a power pack. I’ll snap the track together tomorrow or Monday for the maiden run. That’s all I can do right now but it’s a start.

 

I fell in love with the FEC in March when we were in Florida. What great looking locomotives.

I do not need modern diesels, I do not need modern diesels...
Whimper...