# Rough-Draft of N-Scale shipping / manufacturing facilities



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

So as mentioned in my new member thread (New N-Scale modeler looking to eventually explore DCC) I'm working on an N-scale layout. I have gone through several iterations, with different benchwork shapes and different track types, and have settled on using Atlas Flex-Track for the primary track-work (curves and all), and PECO turnouts (and small PECO flex-track sections between turnouts for sidings).

I'm still working on what I want it to be and how I want it to work, but this is a rough-draft of what I have so far. I'm imagining a large industrial area on the right side, maybe with a small shipping dock, and some containers, factories, etc., and then a mountain with a town in it on the left side, with a beach-front along the river.

I want a long, smooth mainline (which I have two: one that goes up into the mountain and one that runs along the bottom through a tunnel) that gives me a nice run of train. The yard would be for storage of unused rolling stock, and the turntable for storage of unused locos. I'm imagining this as a facility that does a lot of logistics, but also maintains and repairs diesel engines. I also wanted to be able to run two trains alongside, and also past each other, and the 4 mainline sections crossing at the river give me both of those opportunities (though I would have to "stage" them, because it's _really_ one mainline with two branches).

Turns are 14.5" radius at the smallest in the yard, most being around 15-20" radius curves. Grades are 2.5-2.6%, a bit steeper than prototypical, but I was going for the look of trains running above/below each other more than prototypical looks for that. I wanted to keep all my grades as close as possible, so I decided that 2.75% should be the absolute max, with 2.5% being the "target max". I could drop the 3" track to around 2.8" and achieve <2.5% grades, which I may do yet.

Still working on placing other buildings, but this is the first draft of my layout.

The dark-green track on the left-side is a programming track that also gives me a "service location" when I have to test loco's and cars, and gives a feel of a connection to the "outside world" I think. I might curve it to the right or left and try to go above the two other lines, I'm not sure.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

EBrown said:


> So as mentioned in my new member thread (New N-Scale modeler looking to eventually explore DCC) I'm working on an N-scale layout. I have gone through several iterations, with different benchwork shapes and different track types, and have settled on using Atlas Flex-Track for the primary track-work (curves and all), and PECO turnouts (and small PECO flex-track sections between turnouts for sidings).
> 
> I'm still working on what I want it to be and how I want it to work, but this is a rough-draft of what I have so far. I'm imagining a large industrial area on the right side, maybe with a small shipping dock, and some containers, factories, etc., and then a mountain with a town in it on the left side, with a beach-front along the river.
> 
> ...


Your track plan (functionally) looks good for running trains, but not for switching. Except for the yard, and your programing track, there don't seem to be any sidings. Now many people are far more interested in running, than switching. Others are just the opposite, they are primarily interested in switching. There are also "switching layouts" where there is no main line loop, for sheer lack of space.
Most of us want both and have sidings along the main line to drop off / pick up cars, but can still sit back and just watch e'm roll, when we want. Maybe you simply haven't included sidings in this first draft, maybe you don't like switching all that much. Either is fine. Its your railroad.

Another thing that jumps out at me is a lot of track running right along the edge of the table. This can be dangerous for your trains. Any derailments won't just go off the track, they may also go all the way to the floor!  
Also, it usually provides better scenic possibilities, and reduces the predictability leading to boredom factor, if the track is set at a slight angle to the table edges.

I suggest moving your river to the upper right corner area, and your industrial complex to the front & center, where the water now resides. The two double-track railroad bridges, right next to each other, at the top center, will look very unrealistic. By that I mean the placement, not the actual model bridges. There aren't may real places where two rail bridges are necessary that close together. Moving the bridges to the upper right corner will separate them, which will make them more easily believable .
A model railroad looks better when we model the commonplace, rather than the odd. 

There is another problem with the river/gulf. Its too straight off the edge at 90 degrees. That placement makes it very obvious, indeed highlights the fact, that the water starts at one edge, travels minimal distance in constant sight, and plummets off the front edge "at center stage", where it will grab attention.
Like track, watercourses look better when they follow an angle other than dead parallel, or 90 degrees to the table edge. Curve the river and let it run a bit longer before it empties into the gulf. A gulf, bay, or lake needn't be shown much at all. Some of my track runs along lake Washington. Only a few inches can be shown, the rest must be left to the imagination, for lack of room.(see photo)

Traction Fan


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

So there's going to be a wall along the left, top, and right outside edges, so I don't have to worry too much there. For the other ones, I was planning to put a short barrier to keep things from hitting the floor from the height.

As far as switching, I didn't really need a ton of switching outside the yard area, but I might try putting one or two sidings in somewhere that makes sense (just have to find that "somewhere").

The only issue I see with swapping the industrial facilities and the river area's is that the flow from industry -> yard would feel "funny", but maybe I can solve that with a freight siding that drops out at the industry area.

Here's a new layout with a slight change, I did a slightly narrower river with less water that only has one parallel bridge across each location, had the two mainlines split and re-join sooner, and moved the programming track to come out of a "hidden tunnel", to make it less obvious.

I'm still not sure how I feel about moving the river, I'll mentally "play" with the design, maybe it works out better.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

My fiancé made a suggestion last night to move the river to the opposite side, I think I like the "flow" of this one better as it keeps my yard and freight area logically connected.

I pulled the programming track to run from where the other track's tunnel starts at the bottom, along the river, and then drop in where it was at the top of the layout. This feels a lot smoother to me, the double-bridges are still a bit "unnatural", but I think for my purposes they'll suffice, as they're not at the same elevation (in either location).

I still might move the programming track back to where it was in my first design, but I think I'm starting to feel a sense of appreciation for the layout. I also might take the top-right curve and smooth it out more so loco's make a much more gradual arc, and then move the cross-roads there to go into the corner at a 45, so I can have a little housing or commercial area extend "into the unknown."

_I will say_, designing this layout is more fun than I expected, even if I know it's going to change when I build it, I'm enjoying the problem-solving that goes into building a nice railroad layout.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

EBrown said:


> My fiancé made a suggestion last night to move the river to the opposite side, I think I like the "flow" of this one better as it keeps my yard and freight area logically connected.
> 
> I pulled the programming track to run from where the other track's tunnel starts at the bottom, along the river, and then drop in where it was at the top of the layout. This feels a lot smoother to me, the double-bridges are still a bit "unnatural", but I think for my purposes they'll suffice, as they're not at the same elevation (in either location).
> 
> ...


EBrown;

Congratulations to you and your fiancée on your engagement. I've been married to my one time fiancée, for just over 40 years, and I wouldn't have it any other way! I hope you two will be as lucky.
I like the third drawing, based on your fiancée's suggestion. Tell her she's a good track planner. ( How romantic! 😄) 

Seriously, it does away with all the points I mentioned, except the running parallel to, and right along, the edges. Apparently you're OK with that, and its your railroad.
Tunnels can be trouble, unless you have very good access to the track inside them. Ideally, the mountain covering them can be removed for track cleaning, and wreck clearing. Next best is a large hinged door that covers 95% of the tunnel length. This looks like it will be easy for you on the third plan. The tunnel runs along a table edge, so a piece of facia board, with a long piano hinge on the bottom & a couple of magnetic cupboard latches on top, would do the trick.

Your center industrial area would be a natural location for a few sidings. Some industries are rail-served, even today. One possibility is a siding with several small industries along it. This lets you do some challenging switching operations, in a small space. You already have a "run around track" to the immediate left, practically on top of the corner of your table joint. By the way, that 90 degree joint, and the one on the opposite side of that aisle, can be filled in a bit with small sections shaped like a piece of pie. This not only helps keep the trains off the floor, but also gives you a little space for scenery, or a structure. Think that over.

If, as you said, your layout will have walls butted against it at the left, right, & top; you're going to have access problems. Reaching over three feet of waist to chest high table to reach your yard, will be problematic, to say the least. I know, I know, everybody thinks "Well I'm tall, so I can certainly reach that." Yes you can probably reach it, but that's not the same as working on it, cleaning the tracks, putting errant wheels back on the rails, or especially getting your eyeballs close enough to see exactly what is wrong with that misbehaving turnout, or why things derail at that particular spot.
I'm speaking from direct experience here. I have a three foot deep piece of benchwork, with track right at the back. (though no turnouts back that far from an aisle, I've learned that the hard way.) I'm 6'-6" tall, and working back there while bent over my layout is absolutely no fun at all.  

The more complex the trackwork, the more likely, and more often, things are to go wrong. Therefore, complex track work, like yards, should be up front, where you can both reach, and see, them easily, at very close range. I suggest therefore that you consider "flipping" the entire lower right portion of your plan #3. (as though it were printed on a transparency and that was flipped over) That will put the yard, right next to an aisle, the turntable & roundhouse will stay in the middle, and the two-stall engine house will be in the back. This last is not ideal, in terms of access, but better than having the whole yard full of turnouts back there.

I have a few questions for you.

Speaking of turnouts, there's a gaggle of them on the opposite side of the right table from the yard. The scale of your drawing makes it hard for me to figure those out. I see two crossovers, presumably to let trains get from the inside loop to the outer one, but what are the other turnouts for? 

At the top right, you have three curves. The top two, (single tracked) have an obvious function. The third one down, (double tracked) What is its purpose? 

Along those same curves, the drawing shows three rectangular objects a slightly darker green than the track, and with yellow edges. What are those things?

Traction Fan


----------



## Conductorkev (Nov 5, 2021)

traction fan said:


> EBrown;
> 
> Congratulations to you and your fiancée on your engagement. I've been married to my one time fiancée, for just over 40 years, and I wouldn't have it any other way! I hope you two will be as lucky.
> I like the third drawing, based on your fiancée's suggestion. Tell her she's a good track planner. ( How romantic! 😄)
> ...



I'm guessing that's where he wants the crossings. If that's the case hope he is not planning on using retailers like sone ppl do....


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

traction fan said:


> EBrown;
> 
> Congratulations to you and your fiancée on your engagement. I've been married to my one time fiancée, for just over 40 years, and I wouldn't have it any other way! I hope you two will be as lucky.
> I like the third drawing, based on your fiancée's suggestion. Tell her she's a good track planner. ( How romantic! 😄)
> ...


I did a flip-flop of the yard and dropped a few crossings out. I didn't need as many as I had, so now I have this layout for the yard area. This reduced overall turnout count, as well as bringing most of them to the front. I also added a siding up off the top-right corner.

If you mean the double-track upside-down U at the top of the yard, I imagine the inside loop there as being a "service track" for access to various parts of the yard, and then the outer oval is (now) there so that cars can access the inner loop.

I _do_ like how this feels after the flip, as it gives me access to what I am dubbing the "paint booth" area via trucks.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

EBrown said:


> I did a flip-flop of the yard and dropped a few crossings out. I didn't need as many as I had, so now I have this layout for the yard area. This reduced overall turnout count, as well as bringing most of them to the front. I also added a siding up off the top-right corner.
> 
> If you mean the double-track upside-down U at the top of the yard, I imagine the inside loop there as being a "service track" for access to various parts of the yard, and then the outer oval is (now) there so that cars can access the inner loop.
> 
> ...


 OK, that's what I was suggesting. I'm glad you like it, and I think it will work out better for you, "flipped" this way.
Yes, I was talking about the "double-tracked upside down U."
I see what you mean about a service track, and access to the yard & inner loop. Looks good!  
You are wise to reduce the turnout count. Turnouts, and the switch machines that operate them, are to of the more costly items on a model railroad.

Traction Fan


----------



## 5kidsdad (Nov 28, 2021)

Could you live with a reduction of stalls in the roundhouse? That would free up more space for scenery, view block or another industry.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Your yard tracks appear to be very short, i.e. only two locos fit on the one track, That will be too short to do much classification without being a switching problem, too short to do any train makeups or car storage, especially with no runaround track. Except for turntable you don't seem to have any way to reverse a complete train, which makes it a round and round layout. gets boring fast. I'd put in a reversing track from the top of the U across to the mainline at the left, Run the plan to make sure there is a way to re-revese the direction after you've turned the train around, otherwise you have trapped the train into a round and round in the other direction. IMHO turntables and roundhouses are huge real estate hogs that just sit there the majority of the time. You can have an engine maintenance facility without them in a lot less space and with more operating possibilities. Biggest mistake I see (besides using sectional track) novices make is to design their table first and then fit it with track, without giving reason for the track (why is it there, where does it go?) to exist. Railroads are not built that way, 1. an industry or development is built that requires rail service. 2. the railroad puts in track to serve the need without fouling the mainline using the most efficient route available. Yards are put where cars need reorganizing to send them to different locations or industries they serve. Yards are usually double ended, at least the main leads rather than stub tracked. They would unlikely to put the water tower where yo have it by a turntable lead. Steam locomotives were water and fuel hogs compared to what they could carry on board. They usually require filling with water and coal about every 75 miles of mainlines, so those facilities were placed where the engine could do a dash and go refilling. Think of a truck stop on the interstate, they didn't want to spend hours having to park their cars, waiting on the turntable to get switched to the water service track, filling up and having to reverse the entire process. They would also take on coal and sand at the same time so those facilities would be clustered together.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

Unfortunately I have a very limited space, so I don't have the ability to design the layout then add benchwork.

I'll consider adding a reverse loop.

I was looking at the water tower as a fire-suppression and local water supply issue, rather than a steam component.

I can probably reduce the number of stalls, even if just for now. Ideally I'd like to have all my locomotives stored on the table, rather than in a drawer, shelf, or display cabinet. I don't plan to have a ton. I might dump the entire roundhouse / turntable idea, still not sure.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

I like that you’ll be able to have an operational loop to feel some sort of reward before the rest of the mainline is completed. I also like that the inner loop serves as a yard lead. It can, awkwardly, serve as a run around, but not if also serving as an outbound train building track.

I dislike the diesel shed being so far from the aisle. Hard to reach, hard to see. I’d flip that and put the shed down near the round house. Otherwise, given the inherent restrictions, pretty good plan!

Any spurs in the industrial area look like they’ll need to be on a switch back, which is fine. Adds some operating unusualness.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

Say, if you’re contemplating eliminating the turntable, then consider this: 

If the yard storage tracks went towards the top, then you could put in right beside the ladder a long run around parallel to the ladder, and have diesel & caboose( or mow?) storage where the yard tracks are currently shown. This would move everything close to the center aisle, give you a dedicated run around. Service equipment (sand tower etc) on the diesel shed lead so the run around parallel to the ladder would not be occupied.

That would also free up space on the right of the inner loop for a served industry or two.
NOTE: Even if you run steam you could eliminate the TT but connecting outer loop and mainline near the industrial area, creating a wye. You’d need an auto-reverser, but it’d be a simple straight track & two turnouts.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

OilValleyRy said:


> Say, if you’re contemplating eliminating the turntable, then consider this:
> 
> If the yard storage tracks went towards the top, then you could put in right beside the ladder a long run around parallel to the ladder, and have diesel & caboose( or mow?) storage where the yard tracks are currently shown. This would move everything close to the center aisle, give you a dedicated run around. Service equipment (sand tower etc) on the diesel shed lead so the run around parallel to the ladder would not be occupied.
> 
> ...


I'm not quite sure what you mean with the first paragraph.

I could move the Diesel shed around and get a small storage spot for a MOW or 2-3 cabooses on either side of it. Might look at converting it to a wye and seeing how it plays out.


----------



## 5kidsdad (Nov 28, 2021)

To me, your last idea looks good as a service area with loco storage. Ideally it serves as mow storage, caboose track and possibly a rip track. I would try to get a double ended yard in. More prototypical than just stub ended.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

I had actually started on a version where I wanted to do a side-pass yard lane just as you posted that lol

I shortened the radii of the curves in the yard, smallest is 13", then 14.25", then 15.5". Gave myself a side-passing in it, that seems to have a decent look.

I think forcing the turntable on myself in the yard was a mistake, definitely feeling like I get a smoother flow without it.

The mess of industrial buildings at the top-right is just a placeholder, I'm still working through how I want that to look.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Solid.

I like it! This gives you the best of both worlds! Nice long meandering runs with plenty of sidings and yard.

One recommendation... Where the three lines come down along the river and merge into 2 tracks... Flip that turnout, so that when coming from the bottom, the diverging track goes right through the structure. That way the mainline goes straight through the turnout.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

I'll try to do that Jeff!

I skewed the yard and made it an asymmetric oval, I like the feel of this one even better. It makes it feel a little more natural.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

Pardon the rudimentary scratching. 
Red arrow indicates service area off a dedicated run around parallel to the ladder.
Blue arrow is the storage yard - shortest track being caboose storage.
Inner most loop (only one depicted) is the unbound/outbound where trains are built/broken,

I did not indicate the wye connection but that would be at the top. It would also allow trains to depart in either direction and return to your inbound track without backing up.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

So I've made some changes to the layout, as well as to the baseboard, the house we're moving into has changed so the baseboard had to change as well. I'm going there tomorrow and should be able to measure the room I'm going to be setting up in to do the final design, but I'm looking at another U-shaped design, this time with two reversing loops (red sections) and a slightly cleaner industrial area. The reversing loops can also serve as a bypass of the industrial area, should I have a train parked there.

One question I had: should the longer reversing loop on the left be two sections with individual controllers? I suspect I'll probably want that so that if two trains are following each other it doesn't short out as easily.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

I'm having a hard time following the routes. Do you have multi-level tunnels?

Maybe it's just the small screen on my phone making it hard to zoom


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

If it’s DC, I’d say do it as two insulated sections, each with a pair of feeder wires that have fascia switches to turn power on/off to each section. If you’re not do automatic reversing but manual instead, then the power should go to that toggle first, then to the on/off switches for the two sections. That way both insulated sections are the same polarity regardless.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Trains following each other into the reverse loops shouldn't affect the autoreverser. I'd stay away from the digitrax AR1 tho it is "ancient technology using relays" compared to latest almost instantaneous modern solid state designs. Plus the newer ones can do so much more. How about a through siding with a couple tracks for a station and loading dock, so you people living in the mountain town can catch a train, freight can be loaded and offloaded at businesses and transfer facilities. You still have trains just going around and around with no place for the railroad to make any money, the only reason the RR existed and went certain places was to make money not run round and round sightseeing trains. Otherwise you are going to have an awful lot of space to fill up with something. You have a large space labeled industry, but no way for trains to service that industry. Finally playing devils advocate, what is the purpose of the double track 180 1/2 circle on the right side? Seems all it is is a smaller loop around that side, Since it is a tight curve I think you'll need to separate the two curves so that trains with longer cars and engines won't sideswipe one another. Is that curve really necessary at all? Why is it there? A train can't park along it to use it as a yard lead or to service any business and it will be hard to disguise that loop to look like anything but a park train ride. Is there another track arrangement that would let you get from one side to the other that would be more prototypicial and/or have a purpose besides to make a loop? I think even just making it a single track would make more sense. Make it less prominent. Make better use of the space. Right now the track plan is just to follow along parallel to the edges of the base board. Not very interesting and highly predictable, just like an amusement park ride. Here it comes again, there it goes again.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

I do hope you understand that I'm not trying to be ugly or put down what you have done so far, It is just that I'm trying to transfer many years of making a lot of the same mistakes in private before the internet made itself the information superhyway to hopefully make you think and research some more before sealing it in cement. First thing I might do is to make a bumpout at the open end of the right side leg, making a pinch down to 3' just at the end, Then shift the yard over to run at a diagonal into that space, That will allow a larger radius curve around the bottom of the yard or maybe a asymmetric curve around there for visual interest and to give a place where you can uncouple the cars (can't uncouple on a curve!) Then I would get rid of that space eating double U-turn at the top of the right to make the reverse loop become the lead into the yard from the top right corner. That way you can lengthen the yard tracks to make them more workable. Right now it looks like your longest yard track is about 2' long without fouling the switch. A modern passenger car is 80' as well as some of the intermodals and autocars, and 6 axle diesels. I don't know if you have decided to model an era or not, but that means in modern N scale you can possible park 3 80' close coupled cars and engine on your longest yard track, less on the rest. I would try to get at least a couple 3-4' long spurs on each side of a center through main. So the main would make a curve off the back right corner, come across the right leg on a diagonal towards the left corner, then curve around the "bubble" bump out at the end of the leg and turn back towards the wall with a wide turn and head back up the wall to rejoin itself in the corner, making the reverse loop around the yard. The yard tracks would ladder off both sides of the main, with the one closest to the right side of the main connecting back to the main at the bottom as a run around track for the switching loco. The bubble will look better than a square end, make more sense and it's not difficult to construct. Try that and see what you think. If you have any questions let me know and I'll do a quick sketch to help.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

There are no reverse loops in any of the track plans.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Lemonhawk said:


> There are no reverse loops in any of the track plans.


enlarge the small track plan in post# 20, there are 2 large reverse loops colored red if I remember correctly


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

So I threw my old layouts away and I regrouped to give myself some new ideas.

I decided that the elevation changes were overly-complicating my layout and making it hard to actually fit things in an intelligible manner. While I really like how the vertical changes will feel, I want more of an "operation" style layout.

Additionally, we found a house we plan to be in for a _very_ long time, so I'm removing some of the requirements I was placing myself under regarding where breaks in the layout have to be. This will be a permanent location for the layout, so I don't need to be as worried about benchwork dimensions and such. Additionally, I'm not going to use any MDF now, as I don't _need_ to.

I also took most of the advice in the previous posts, and started by identifying _where_ my trains will have purpose. I threw some rough labels in, built an oval, and worked from there. Based on that, I came up with two passenger loading stations, a freight loading station, and what will be an intermodal yard. (Previously, I had been starting my designs by building the yard and working around it, but not this time.)

I may still move the freight station around a bit, but it seemed to work relatively well there. It's a very short trip to the yard though, which I'm not sure I like. I may add a freight load/unload at the passenger terminal on the bottom-left platform.

The red sections are sections where trains reverse direction, just like I notated in my other design. I marked them red so I remember that when I install them I need DCC reverse-loop controllers.

Every curve is >= 16" radius, _except_ inside the yard area, but I'm not really worried about those as I think I'm only going to have the one loop, and it's a 15.7" radius. If I have a second, it'll be 14.4", still well above the 11" that is the "recommended minimum" for all the trains I want to run.

I also left myself a 1/2" buffer around the wall before the benchwork where I plan to put foam so I can perhaps do scenery backdrops / etc., and I left myself a 1" buffer at my desk where I'll be putting a thicker foam (because there's no wall) for the same.

Reach is 30-36" from front to back. Back of the yard is 36", passenger loading behind the freight area is 30", the inside corner top-right of the yard is just over 40", but all the rest are pretty shallow. Additionally, the aisle between the out-crop and the yard is just under 34", so plenty of space to get in and out without bumping into anything. I'm also keeping all the "complex" switching towards the front of the layout, trying to keep most of it within 12-18" of the front of the benchwork.

The yard is incomplete. I'm still drawing ideas in my head, if anyone has suggestions I'm happy to hear them. As well as if anyone has suggestions on the freight terminal and how I might make that feel more "natural". This is a (new) very rough draft.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

That sure seems to be a simpler layout, at least for my poor old eyes. I think it is wise to move away from multi level, unless you want 2 different tracks... one at ground level, and one up in the hills. That way you can still have bridges and tunnels, but without the problems associated with inclines/declines. Although, you do have enough space to do inclines. It takes about 8 feet at a 2% grade to rise 2" which is just enough clearance below for a tunnel.

But with 2 different tracks, so can have one doing the "roundy-round" thing up in the hills, while doing switching operations at ground level. My layout is built this way, and to me, it is the best of both worlds.

It's really simple to leave a void between 2" pieces of foam to make a tunnel.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

Yeah I'll probably do some tunnel/bridge work through terrain, but I definitely feel like this layout is flowing better.

I did some cleanup, got the left reverse-loop flowing much smoother, I might shorten the passenger terminal at the top and avoid the sharp s-curve on the left when a passenger train leaves, not sure.

I also cleaned up the passenger terminal at the bottom-left and made those two tracks run parallel. Seems to be a much simpler layout, but still has some fair complexity and fun.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

So I spent the day playing around with some design changes, gave my yard a locomotive storage area, a small caboose storage area, and then a few spurs for cars, may add more in the other direction. Also put a diagonal cross through it, and on the right side of the yard from the furthest right there is the mainline, then the yard loop, then a track where I can comfortably build trains.

Idk if this makes any sense, I'm just throwing sections together, but this feels like a nice area. There's 4ft of usable space in the train-building line, and the longest spur is around 3ft, with most being 1-2ft, and the loco-storage being 6"-12" for the most part. I also have a freight location over by the other passenger terminal, which gives more dynamics to the trains.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

I like where this is going!

In the loop on the lower right by the yard. You have a thoroughfare that must traverse 5 turnouts in succession. I would find a way to branch off to the yard, rather than have to traverse 5 turnouts connected to each other.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

So I was able to clean that section up a bit, and kept most of my yard shape. The reverse loop throughway has no more than 2 switches directly adjacent now.

Flipped my loco storage yard to roll the other way too. This way I have things going in both directions so the yard doesn't look as bottom-heavy.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Looking good! 👍


----------

