# Folded Dogbone Room Layouts



## jackpresley

The room is 13' x 12' 6" -- excluding the door alcove. There is an outside entry door centered on the south wall that I'm reversing the swing so it opens out. Drawings attached show it as it is now.

My layout will be based on the folded dogbone below. This is only the main line with no turnouts or sidings. I've considered angling the easter loop out into a peninsula in the room. Towns/industry will be located along the north and west sides, with mostly timber and elevation around the ends of the dogbones.

Up for ideas how to maximize this space and minimizing "access holes?" Could I make the northwest corner at 4' 6" across to duck under, without having the rest of the board too high? Guess I need to figure that grade.

Thank you.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Since you're going to build a folded dog-bone layout, I would suggest that you totally eliminate the duck-under. You'll loose some length of your mainline, but I think you'll be much happier in the long run. Just eliminate the duck under section and the narrow benchwork on the west wall. Then your loop backs will be at the top and the lower left corner.

Mark


----------



## jackpresley

I've decide to initially bridge the outside door and go for easy access from the family room door. I'll build the bridge last so I can bring in materials from (and do cutting on) the back porch. I will shorten the eastern table so that I can pull it away from the wall and get to both sides of it during construction. I'm concerned with reaching across a 5' wide surface.

I'm also curious if 24" and 22" radii will work in parallel or if 2" on center is not enough for parallel lines, especially around curves??


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

The problem I see with your second layout is that you've placed a lot of track out of reach. For example, much of your yard is well over 2 ft. away. A good portion of your mainline is well over 3 ft away. Most people can't work that far away. I've attached a rough attempt at a different dog-bone configuration. You can add spurs and a yard on the inner portions of the mainline. You can also make the benchwork better follow the contour of the track plan so that you don't have to reach far for either construction or operation of the layout. In my mockup, the only track that's really out of reach is in the lower left corner. If it were me, I'd put a mountain in that corner that covered that track and make the track accessible from below the table. Just my advice.

Mark


----------



## DonR

Since you are in the basic planning stages of your
layout I thought a few suggestions might be helpful.

You mentioned the possibility of a peninsula in
the center of the room. You have the space for a
limited one but keep in mind that you will have need
of getting in the walkways. Make sure they are wide
enough for your size.

Industrial spurs and yards will need your hands on
to make them operational. You'll need to uncouple
and rerail cars. Make sure those are in easy arm
reach.

You may want to consider a single track main with
passing sidings. With this and DCC you can have
one train going clockwise and another counterclockwise.
This creates interesting operating sessions.

You will want to have a passing siding near your
yards and industrial sidings. Some spurs will require
you to push a car forward into it...while you would
back a car into others. For this to work you need a way
to get 'on the other side' of the car.

If you are going to have a hinged or lift out section of
track, plan to have an electrical 'interrupt' that will 
shut off the power to the tracks approaching the bridge.
This will protect your locos from taking a fatal dive
to the floor.

Make sure the table top is high enough so you can
comfortably work UNDER it. You'll be doing a lot of
wire running and connecting under there. I measured
myself sitting as I would to do the work and added
a couple inches.

Before you put the 'top' on your frames drill a number
of holes through the cross members. This will make it
easier to string the wires and cables later on.

Provide for a switchable power strip that you can 
plug in your various layout power supplies. There
should be a visible 'pilot' light that glows when the
system is ON.

Don


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

jackpresley said:


> I'm also curious if 24" and 22" radii will work in parallel or if 2" on center is not enough for parallel lines, especially around curves??


I looked up this question on the NMRA website. You can find their recommendations at https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/...pdf/rp-7.2_curved_track_centers_july_2017.pdf. While 2" on center works for parallel straight track, I'd go with 3" centerline distance in corners.

Mark


----------



## CTValleyRR

Mark VerMurlen said:


> I looked up this question on the NMRA website. You can find their recommendations at https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/...pdf/rp-7.2_curved_track_centers_july_2017.pdf. While 2" on center works for parallel straight track, I'd go with 3" centerline distance in corners.
> 
> Mark


This is particularly true if you're running long equipment that overhangs a lot on the curves (especially the outside edge of the 22" curve).


----------



## mesenteria

There's an old aphorism used in the Combat Arms (Canadian Armed Forces they are armour, infantry, artillery, combat engineers).

"Time spent on recce is seldom wasted."

Recce is pronounced "wreck-ee", and is short for reconnaissance.

It works well in our hobby, too. Take the time to mock up the potential trouble spots with temporary track. Be careful to get your curves and tangents correctly spaced and radiused, and then run your largest/longest/highest rolling stock. This is where you would prove that the trusted NMRA gauge for your scale is too stingy. You'll find the minimum spacing they recommend simply isn't enough. Or, a lot more than you actually need. Or the overhead clearance needs to be higher, as it is for my GG1's pantograph when it is extended.*

You will have some hard empirical facts for your worst-case-scenario. For me, it's my Rivarossi H-8 Allegheny with some serious side-swipe potential, even on broad curves. The driver's side injector overflow downpipe flares widely near the tracks, and I had it scrape on a rock face early on that needed more carving. Or, the roof overhang on the rear of the cab...that corner would also scrape going into a tunnel portal on a curve. That, too, was a surprise. If you mock it up and check, you can be sure with some hard numbers. This is very important if you want to enjoy your work when you begin to run trains.

You can nest curves with the same radius, but you must allow a flare-out of the tangents on the outer curve once both return to tangent tracks. If you don't see what I mean, or why, draw it out. The inner curve's path when it returns to tangent will overlap the outer curve's...or you could join them into single track if you wish, and don't intend to have a twinned main throughout.

One last observation from me: if you end up with your first layout plan, consider making the 'inner' parallel long tangent at right, along the wall, curved for variety and aesthetic appeal.

Edit [Forgot about my asterisk earlier....sorry...] 
*I calculated the height I'd need for my overhead clearance by actually extending the GG1's pantograph and measuring from the rails up to it's maximum elevated height. Then I made sure all my tunnel portals would clear that. Unfortunately, I forgot about a double-track truss bridge that a friend gifted to me years ago. I set it in place and went about adding other tracks around the layout. Went to run the GG1 and it stopped short as the pantograph met the top sway braces. Fortunately, the pantograph stayed in place and didn't bend or break off. Was I ever lucky. So, the best laid plans o' mice and men....


----------



## jackpresley

I appreciate everyone's inputs. I'm soaking it all in and coming up with more options.


----------



## jackpresley

*Initial Table Layout*

For no more the 2' 6" reach, this seems to be the only viable table layout without a bridge. Ignore the parallel track layout, I just put that in there to see how much room I would have around 22" and 24" radii curves.


----------



## jackpresley

*With Bridged Access*

To give myself a maximum of 2' 6" of reach, this seems to be the only option for a shelf layout with a peninsula turn-around.

Still not sure I want to deal with bridged access.

This is a flat layout. I'd probably elevate the peninsula and have one turn-around hidden.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Your last layout above is really interesting. I think it has a lot of potential. Because of the complexity of the track near the room entrance, you're probably going to have to make this a "duck under" rather than some type of gate or bridge. I kind of have a duck under layout too, but my room is smaller and I have the control panel on the outside of the layout so I only have to duck under for construction, maintenance, or fixing problems (like a derailment). I'm in my mid 50s, so that suits me fine.

Since you've taken such a keen interest in building your own track plan, if you haven't already, I would suggest that you buy John Armstrong's book titled "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". It has a lot of information on track plan design. I think you'd find it very interesting. I would especially read it for the yard design. There's something about your yard in this plan that doesn't look right, but I can't put my finger on it. I think it depends a bit on how you want to use the yard. You need to leave one path as your thru mainline. Are you primarily going to use this as storage for full trains? If so, you have 2 other pull-through tracks that will work well for this, but then you've got a longer dead end track in the middle of the yard. If you plan to use the yard for train building, then I think you need to have a proper "switching lead" and you don't need so many through tracks. If you get Armstrong's book, it will talk about this.

You've got a fairly long length of main line track. How long do you plan your longest train to be? You've got a passing siding that will allow for about 5 ft trains. If you want to run more than 1 train simultaneously and you want trains that are longer than 5 ft, then you need to make your passing siding longer. I think that you may want to consider adding another passing siding or 2 in your plan. You might be able to do that in your peninsula area. Your yard can also act as a passing area, but then that takes away a storage track in the yard. Again, this sort of depends on how you want to run your layout.

One way I found to get longer passing sidings and longer yard lengths was to use curved turnouts. The issue with curved turnouts is that they are much more expensive and only a few manufacturers make them. You'll just need to determine if their expense is worth it to you for the increased flexibility they can give you or not.

Hope this helps.

Mark


----------



## DonR

Jack

If you simply Flipped your latest proposed layout laterally
your 'door' area would be simplified and make possible
a 'bridge'. I strongly urge you to use a 'bridge'. No matter
your age, you'll soon tire of 'crawling under'. I can say this
from experience. I would be running my trains more often
if that dreaded 'crawl under' wasn't there. Even if you
had your controls outside of the layout you'll have to crawl
to contend with derails, coupling and uncoupling. Magnets
under the rails are often not where you want to spot
a car, thus 'Hand Of God' uncoupling.

Additionally, you get phone calls, need a tool, or any
number of other interrupts that might require you to
crawl under.

Don


----------



## jackpresley

Mark VerMurlen said:


> Your last layout above is really interesting. I think it has a lot of potential. Because of the complexity of the track near the room entrance, you're probably going to have to make this a "duck under" rather than some type of gate or bridge. I kind of have a duck under layout too, but my room is smaller and I have the control panel on the outside of the layout so I only have to duck under for construction, maintenance, or fixing problems (like a derailment). I'm in my mid 50s, so that suits me fine.
> 
> Since you've taken such a keen interest in building your own track plan, if you haven't already, I would suggest that you buy John Armstrong's book titled "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". It has a lot of information on track plan design. I think you'd find it very interesting. I would especially read it for the yard design. There's something about your yard in this plan that doesn't look right, but I can't put my finger on it. I think it depends a bit on how you want to use the yard. You need to leave one path as your thru mainline. Are you primarily going to use this as storage for full trains? If so, you have 2 other pull-through tracks that will work well for this, but then you've got a longer dead end track in the middle of the yard. If you plan to use the yard for train building, then I think you need to have a proper "switching lead" and you don't need so many through tracks. If you get Armstrong's book, it will talk about this.
> 
> You've got a fairly long length of main line track. How long do you plan your longest train to be? You've got a passing siding that will allow for about 5 ft trains. If you want to run more than 1 train simultaneously and you want trains that are longer than 5 ft, then you need to make your passing siding longer. I think that you may want to consider adding another passing siding or 2 in your plan. You might be able to do that in your peninsula area. Your yard can also act as a passing area, but then that takes away a storage track in the yard. Again, this sort of depends on how you want to run your layout.
> 
> One way I found to get longer passing sidings and longer yard lengths was to use curved turnouts. The issue with curved turnouts is that they are much more expensive and only a few manufacturers make them. You'll just need to determine if their expense is worth it to you for the increased flexibility they can give you or not.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Mark


Yes it does. Thanks for the book tip. I'll read it.

The yard is loose approximation of the Mt. Pleasant, TX (my hometown) yard from the 60's. It had 2 "main lines" plus what my Dad called a bypass line. It definitely did not "look right" so I got that part right, at least.  Anyway all the trackwork is just a hack for now.

Thanks to Don's idea, flipping the track will allow me to create a duck under bridge. The peninsula will be elevated to receive the north side. I think I can make it a 4 to 5' off the floor, but still need to gonculate the grade.

You guys are a huge help. Thanks.


----------



## jackpresley

DonR said:


> Jack
> 
> If you simply Flipped your latest proposed layout...
> 
> Don


Brilliant.
The voice of experience. My back and knees thank you.

This trackage is just an approximation as are the table tops. My wife has been pushing me to create more vertical topography so I'm going to elevate the peninsula to about 4' 6" (off the floor) track height for the loop coming in from the north. We stretching masking tape across the entrance to see how much of a duck it takes to get under it.

The southern loop will be in a tunnel underneath the other loop. Perhaps. We'll see.


----------



## jackpresley

Why not make the height of the table top at 5' and have steps up to an elevated walk around area in side the table? That room has a high ceiling. Then I would only have to "duck under" by 1 foot.

Hmmm.


----------



## cole226

jackpresley said:


> Why not make the height of the table top at 5' and have steps up to an elevated walk around area in side the table? That room has a high ceiling. Then I would only have to "duck under" by 1 foot.
> 
> Hmmm.


Good idea. But it might make under platform access tuff for storage or layout maintainence. :dunno:

remember to paint your walls blue and drill stringers for wire run before you put the _lid_ on.


----------



## CTValleyRR

jackpresley said:


> Why not make the height of the table top at 5' and have steps up to an elevated walk around area in side the table? That room has a high ceiling. Then I would only have to "duck under" by 1 foot.
> 
> Hmmm.


Definitely an option. Some of us jokingly call that a "nod-under". If you want to get really complicated, you can use a pair of drawer slides to create a kind of lift bridge for the whole layout section. You can even build a short step next to the layout everywhere but in your duckunder.

I also just put my finger on what's "wrong" with the yard. The through routes are part of the yard trackage, so you can't use those tracks for storage. This isn't really wrong (arguably, nothing is wrong if that's how you want it), but you should do it knowingly, not have an "oh crap" moment later.


----------



## DonR

Jack

After studying your latest layout version it occurs
to me that you actually have two separate single
track mainlines.

I'm assuming that with a layout of this size you'll be
running DCC.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, single track mainlines
can offer very interesting operational opportunities.
If you could somehow work in a couple of passing sidings
on your peninsula you could run one train clock wise
on each main, and another train counter clockwise on
each. That would give you a lot of challenging train
running...2 trains at the same time on each of your two
different mains. Lotta fun.

Don


mains


----------



## jackpresley

DonR said:


> Jack
> 
> After studying your latest layout version it occurs
> to me that you actually have two separate single
> track mainlines.


Actually that is an illusion. It is one main line and the loops on the peninsula put the train back on the parallel lines so that two (or more trains) running the same direction pass each other. 

I'm taking a different approach. I don't know what the word is for "compressed prototyping" but that's what I'm doing. Trying to create a yard similar to my hometown yard which had two main lines going by it (1960s). There was also a triple Y in town that was fun to watch them turn an 80 car freight around and send it back the way it came. Obviously, scaling this down to fit my possible space and keep the basic complexity of the yard is a challenge. 

It also happens that the "drag" -- the loop I drove round and round through town as a teenager is right by the yard, so squeezing in the basics of that rules out a "shelf" perimeter layout.

JerryH's and Mike VerMurlen's modular approaches to construction is likely what I'm going to have to do. I think I can get the main elements in 6' x 13' with no track on the outside 3' (just the town), so I can start with 3' x 13' building the town and then add the yard on the second 3' strip so I can reach the yard when the track is laid.

If you look at the image, I'll be moving Mt. Pleasant south and flipping the kidney bean over so that it lies to the east instead of west. I want to make sure I keep the town layout oriented the same otherwise I'll goof it up when building it.

If I just hadn't looked at Google Earth! The Cotton Belt and newer coal trains make the perfect kidney bean loop with MP in the upper right corner of that loop. I'm moving the town and yard down to the north-south straight section of that loop. When I modeled the yard "as is" it was about 20' long, so it'll be heavily compressed if I keep my 24" min radii on the main lines.


----------



## DonR

I see what you mean...these tired old eyes don't
always get the whole picture.

Even so, you have a single track main line and
my nagging about adding passing sidings so you
can have both clockwise and counter clockwise
trains running at the same time still applies.

Don


----------



## jackpresley

DonR said:


> Even so, you have a single track main line and
> my nagging about adding passing sidings so you
> can have both clockwise and counter clockwise
> trains running at the same time still applies.
> 
> Don


Yes, the plan is to put at least two passing sidings on the main line so I can run opposite direction trains.


----------



## jackpresley

*N Scale Coffee Table Layout*

After a lot of design and study, I have decided to start small and create coffee table size layout in N scale. The objective is to see if this a going to be a long term hobby or "get the train out at Christmas break" hobby. 

Here is the layout I'm going to build in my living room. I've created a "top" for our coffee table with felt on the underside so it won't scratch the actual coffee table underneath. If I automate the turnouts, that portion of the board overhangs the table underneath so I can experiment with under-table switch machines. Any other wiring will be above the table, but under scenery.

This is a compact 180* folded dogbone layout, which I chose because single direction operations results in lots of "passing" on the parallel track. Operations look complex but it is really just a folded up oval. I simulated running 3 trains and it was entertaining. With variable speed trains, one has to really pay attention at the 4 crossings.

East Bone is the town where I'll experiment with structure and I'll put a station between East/West Bone on the north parallel.

In phase two, I will elevate "West Bone" into a plateau and create a mining town. This will eliminate the crossings as the the west loop will be elevated and the east bone entry will be in a tunnel. That will allow me to add a turn out for the mine.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I think its a good idea to start with a smaller layout before trying to do a much larger one. You'll learn a lot from the first one that you can carry over into later ones if you find you really like the hobby.

Regarding your new N scale layout, you mention trying to raise the track around "West Bone" during phase 2. That certainly looks possible, but I think that will eliminate all 4 crossovers that you have and you'll have to tear up a lot of track (and scenery) to do it. That seems like a lot of extra expense and effort. If I were you, I'd build the track configuration you really want right away. Since this isn't that big of a layout, I think it will actually be cheaper and more efficient in the long run.

Mark


----------



## jackpresley

Mark VerMurlen said:


> If I were you, I'd build the track configuration you really want right away. Since this isn't that big of a layout, I think it will actually be cheaper and more efficient in the long run.
> 
> Mark


You're probably right. Eliminated the crossings would allow for more turnouts and even a passing siding.

Unfortunately the way my schedule worked out, it'll probably be April before I can do any serious work on it. Might get some work done in February, but not likely.

I appreciate your inputs. Thank you.


----------



## cid

All the way aound the walls!!! 50" height. Put yer cot, tv and mini fridge below. Duckunder won't kill you.😁😁


----------



## jackpresley

*4x8 Granite Gorge and Northern in N Scale*

I'm calling it the *Granite Shoals and Llano*

When you don't have time to build, but you have time to plan -- you can drive yourself nuts. 

After a lot of simulation time, I decided that the coffee-table size layout was going to get boring pretty fast. So I decided on 4x8 because I can set that up in several locations in the house to work on it, and I can still store it out of the way when the boss lady demands it.

While I was pretty settled on a folded dogbone layout, again a lot of simulation time and lack of possible variations in operation had me bored. Watching Jerry's new, larger, GGN made me think. Why not build a GGN in N scale but use close to the H0 size (4x8 in N vs 5x9 in H0)? That turned out to be roomy. It also allowed me to add a perimeter loop to one of the two main lines. This is what I came up with. My only concern is the the double crossing reversal. Only 66mm of straight between the turn reversal.

When I added the passing siding to the perimeter loop, I noticed that I could easily add a 3rd option to move from one main line to the other, so I also put that in there. 

I put both main lines on one side of the river in an attempt to keep the mains closer together. I like the looks better, but it also gives me more room to work the yard while trains are running on the main lines.

Home Depot had some 4x8 foam board in 2" thickness on sale so I'm going to start with that to make sure I don't screw up the elevations.


----------



## CTValleyRR

jackpresley said:


> I'm calling it the *Granite Shoals and Llano*
> 
> When you don't have time to build, but you have time to plan -- you can drive yourself nuts.
> 
> After a lot of simulation time, I decided that the coffee-table size layout was going to get boring pretty fast. So I decided on 4x8 because I can set that up in several locations in the house to work on it, and I can still store it out of the way when the boss lady demands it.


Well, that's exactly why I designed my layout a few years ago (right after the demise of my previous one), and now I help others design theirs rather than tinkering with mine.

While you may be right about the coffee table sized layout getting boring, your latest plan is a little more complex than I would recommend for a first timer. That was the advantage of your previous design. Not that I don't like your new plan; I do! I'm just afraid you might bite off more than you can chew.

Something else to consider: often it isn't the track arrangement that gets boring per se, but the lack of any user input -- you're watching trains rather than running them. This arrangement still doesn't give you much to do other than vary the route more than the other allowed. So just be sure that you're still actually ok with this style of operation (often, you need to actually build a layout to tell).


----------



## JerryH

The GG&N layout as originally designed is difficult to build and have reliable running. Probably one of the toughest of the Atlas designs. The reason is the trackwork has to be well done as you are going uphill or downhill with curves most of the time. The far right turnout is particularly important because it resides on an apex. This is the worst situation for a turnout location. Another thing is as the scale becomes smaller, trackwork may be even more critical. Going to minimum grade rates and maximum radius curves that will fit in the space you have, will help.


----------



## jackpresley

CTValleyRR said:


> (often, you need to actually build a layout to tell).


Yes, I think I am at that point. Thank you.



JerryH said:


> The GG&N layout as originally designed is difficult to build and have reliable running. Probably one of the toughest of the Atlas designs. The reason is the trackwork has to be well done as you are going uphill or downhill with curves most of the time. The far right turnout is particularly important because it resides on an apex. This is the worst situation for a turnout location. Another thing is as the scale becomes smaller, trackwork may be even more critical. Going to minimum grade rates and maximum radius curves that will fit in the space you have, will help.


If I scaled down the GG&N to N scale, the table size would be 2'9" x 4'11" -- since I'm nearly doubling that (4x8), I'm hoping the extra space will making the grade entries into the turnouts more forgiving. So far, the Unitrack design seems to keep one honest. I'm actually pretty impressed with it so far, quality-wise, but operations will tell the tale.

If this works, I'll be tapping that brain of yours to computerize it. 

-Jack


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I agree with CTValleyRR that this is a pretty complicated layout to build. I was trying to figure out how many reversing loops this plan has and I can't figure it out in my head because its so complex. I'm pretty sure you have at least one reversing loop, but you may have a few more. You should print this out at a larger scale and go around the layout marking the red rail side and black rail side as you trace around the layout. This will tell you the correct polarity when you wire the layout and also will show you where you have reversing loops to deal with.

Mark


----------



## JerryH

There are no reverse loops in the original plan.


----------



## jackpresley

Mark VerMurlen said:


> I'm pretty sure you have at least one reversing loop, but you may have a few more.Mark


This is not a polarity drawing but it I find it easier to understand the layout. It is essentially the GG&N with an additional loop around the perimeter for one of the main lines. The Red Line is the shorter main line but works the yard. The Green Line is the longer line and has a passing siding and one industrial siding. The Yellow Lines take you from Green to Red or vice versa. (The gray line is going to be omitted.) The Red Line travels Southwest on the double bridge. The Green Line travels Northeast on the same bridge.

The genius behind Armstrong's original design (which is basically two figure 8's in parallel) is that you can run the trains in opposite directions on the figure 8s but the logic of the connectors avoids reversing loops. 

We created the Lionel layout and called it Crazy 8s when I was a kid. Lots of collisions, but it was sure fun. Both of those engines are still running today... 55 years later.


----------



## jackpresley

I need to study up on Kato switch wiring. The #4 turnouts must work differently than the #6's.


----------



## jackpresley

N scale doesn't make a 4x8 layout any bigger. Yeah, I can get a LOT more done in that space, but in the end, it is still just a 4x8 layout. Maybe it'll seem better when I add the topography and scenery.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

jackpresley said:


> The genius behind Armstrong's original design (which is basically two figure 8's in parallel) is that you can run the trains in opposite directions on the figure 8s but the logic of the connectors avoids reversing loops.


Thanks for the color coded track plan. This does help a lot with with understanding the patterns of the track. You're right that there are no reverse loops. I had to print your plan out on paper and put plus and minus signs on each side of the rails and trace around it to prove that to myself. I would have bet you large sums of money that your longer yellow links would form reversing loops, but they actually don't. Glad I didn't make a bet with you on that!

Should make for a very interesting layout.

Mark


----------



## jackpresley

Mark VerMurlen said:


> ... I had to print your plan out on paper and put plus and minus signs on each side of the rails and trace around it to prove that to myself. ...
> 
> Should make for a very interesting layout.
> 
> Mark


Thanks for doing that, gives me piece of mind that I didn't screw up the re-design.

Watching Jerry's videos was the inspiration. Conflict resolution in operations is a lot more entertaining than I imagined. I need to get a six pack and go pay him a visit after spring break. I'd like to see it in person.


----------



## JerryH

The GG&N does make for some interesting continuous running without the boredom of conventional ovals. Manual operation with a train on each figure eight and swapping them can be a challenge and is even more trying with a third train in the mix. Add a decent yard and a lone operator can have all he can eat with this general design, operations wise.


----------



## JerryH

That S curve may be an issue with a too short of straight between. The recommended practice is to have a length as long or longer than the longest car or loco.


----------



## jackpresley

JerryH said:


> That S curve may be an issue with a too short of straight between. The recommended practice is to have a length as long or longer than the longest car or loco.


I'm afraid of that. It's just 66mm in length, which is just over 2.5 inches. I'd like to add a couple of 62mm straight sections on each side (7.5" total straight track), but the ripple affect on the design is significant.

I may look at cutting two 25* crossings so that they fit 33mm on center to help eliminate that snake. Having never cut Kato Unitrack, I'm a little intimidated.


----------



## JerryH

If you use 45s instead of 90s, you would eliminated the "S" all together. The original GG&N used 45s and I have stayed with them on the enlarged designs as well.


----------



## jackpresley

Oddly enough in Kato, you have only two choices: 90 or 15. I said 25, but meant 15. I previously designed it with the 15's, so that might be my easiest option. I think easier than dealing with transitions from Kato to Atlas.


----------



## JerryH

If you are Kato committed, I would look at a single 15 to reduce the "S" bringing that single track in between the double track and join the single track to the inner track with a RH turnout instead of a LH.


----------



## jackpresley

JerryH said:


> If you are Kato committed, I would look at a single 15 to reduce the "S" bringing that single track in between the double track and join the single track to the inner track with a RH turnout instead of a LH.


Yes, I am committed to Kato for this project. And that's an out-of-the-box solution that works. Thank you. Avoids cutting that stuff altogether.


----------



## jackpresley

*Grandpa*

I'm going to be a granddad come September! Very excited about the first one. So the future Grandma has decided that dedicating a spare bedroom to be a train room is now a bad idea -- and she is probably right. Not really a bad thing as this allowed me to convince her that I should move to the garage.

I'm going with a 6x10 table layout. There is room for 10'x22' and still get one car in, so can go longer if needed to ease some grades. Benchwork will be in nothing bigger than 4' x 6' so it'll be easier to move when I upgrade from N to H0 in a few years.

Since going with Kato Unitrack I have built two or three coffee table layouts and I'm really happy with with it so I'm pretty confident with moving to a bigger size on the permanent layout.

Once again, I started with the Granite Gorge and Northern layout. The original roughly had two counter-rotating main lines. I cleaned that up making the main lines parallel and extending them with a loop around the perimeter of the table. 

For clarity I left omitted the turnouts for industry and just left the two passing sidings. There a no reversing loops, but as before, there are two change-over routes: 1 red to blue and 1 blue to red.

The left side of the layout is a high plateau, with probably a ranch scene. The right side has a central, more rugged hill with a possible quarry scene. Whereas the GGN had a central river through it, this layout will have more of a shallow river or dry gulch through it. The tracks will hug the gulch closely.

Extending the table to 6x12 gives me greater elevation options and keeps the grade less than 3%. It would also unclutter the east side significantly and allow for a nice desert town setting. So I will probably do that. It might be nice running longer trains, too.

Other than extending it two more feet, I think this is IT. I've got a bit of time off in April so I hope to make some progress and turn this "vaporware" layout into a hardware layout.


----------



## Magic

Interesting track plan, good luck with it.

Magic


----------

