# Stop me before I design again..



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

Hi all,

I've never designed a Model RR before unless my Son's Thomas trains count. (Actually, that can be kind of challenging at times.) I've spent a ton of time that I really don't have playing with various options, and this is what I've come up with. I'm finding that layout design is all about tradeoffs. Here, my goals were, in consultation with my eight year old...

a) Some grades allowing mountain terrain and crossing bridges.
b) Ability to have long train runs without attending trains.
c) Interesting operational issues such including yard work and branch / main and running lots of trains (DCC!). By interesting issues I don't mean "everything works perfectly". In fact, I'd like to have a yard design that makes sense but that involves interesting dynamics and tradeoffs with perhaps some conflict for trackage between branch line and main, etc.. But I also want things to work smoothly when well planned.
d) and finally, I came to the realization after initial experimentation that I care about smooth running and longer trains (and we want passenger rail eventually).
e) interesting scenery

i.e. fun!

What I don't care so much about:

a) Prototyping / hyper-realism
b) "Shoulds" 

But all of this is theoretical since again, I've never built or operated a train before except for a very small set when I was a kid.

Again I started out with an 18" plan but decided to go with 22" or above. All of the mainline swtiches are #6s (I think). The branch is 18", the mine is 15". Short hoppers and road switcher there.) I have a couple of short 30% grades, but otherwise they are all 25%.

Branch line is purple, main line is yellow, yard is gray. There will be a mountain where marked so there will actually be a pair of tunnels where it looks like a bridge near yard. That are will be accessible for fiddling and I'll probably try to get some tracks back there too..There are a few opportunities for other sidings and passing track but I don't want it to get *too* busy.

Eventually, the layout will be mirrored from where it is now, so it will be like a rectangle with a hole in the middle. (There are reasons I'm doing it this way that I'm not going to change.) At that point I'm hoping to be able to run full 80' passenger trains around the outer edge.

Anyway, I'd appreciate any thoughts..there are at least a few things that I know are potential problem areas / negative tradeoffs, but I'm trying to decide what of those I can or should live with..

a) Some tracks are awfully close to edge (that will be protected)
b) some tracks are awfully close to each other
c) differences in height may be hard to handle with cliffs.
d) Yard body is short.

Also, I'm wondering..

a) I've got a couple of close tolerances, i.e. grades at 25% from both directions and clearances of 3". Is it the kind of thing where if I'm off by .2" it's a disaster, or is that kind of things usually workable by rejiggering things a bit back to the previous switch?
b) Does the yard need to be this complex or perhaps I'd be better off pairing it back?
c) Am I going too nuts on the grades and or amount of trackage?

I also tried to design this in a way that we could layout the branch (in purple) with our existing track so we could get some experience before tackling grades, etc.. so I'll be installing some temp track that will be replaced later. That's why I've tried to keep the yard and most of branch at grade.

In fact, this whole exercise is based on wanting to get started but not wanting to have to tear things apart and start over when we go beyond the original track. Anyway. I'm getting bugged about when we're going to start building and stop planning so please help me stop! Are there too many tradeoffs I'm juggling here, should I scrap it and go with something much simpler?

thanks!

Miles


----------



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

Here are the designs inline..


----------



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

Oh and one other question I forgot to ask. It seemed from reading posts that to run bigger equipment like 3 axle trucks, passenger cars and long freight cars, etc.. that 22" was sort of the bare minimum and that #6s were the way to go. But I could open up a lot of room by using #4s on the mainline. It would be nice to cost-wise to be able to use snap-switches in places as well. For one thing, I bought six so I need to use those. Again, I'm much more worried about performance than realism..I'd like to be able to run the trains at (realistic) full speed along most if not all of the main-line.

general thoughts about building an 18" branch layout and expanding it to 22" like I'm trying to do hear would also be appreciated.


----------



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

Oops..realized I didn't give the dimensions. The overall layout is 80 x 120, i.e. two 40x80 panels with an additional 20x40 and two 20x20 arcs for the interior corners.


----------



## TapRoot (Oct 3, 2010)

I always thought max grade was 4%? 

Im super new at this too but one thing is for certain that rail yard is not over done....ill have mine up in a few days for you to see if anything is over kill its what I got planned....I love rail yards

ill also post a video in the next hour in my layout thread titled "Taps 5X9"
I have very long cars ripping around 24" ...kinda looks like there pulling g's even haha.


----------



## Southern (Nov 17, 2008)

Just a thought on the grades. 25% and 30% are very steep. Are you sure the grades are not 3.0% and 2.5%?


----------



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

Yeah, probably.  I'm using a european track planning software and perhaps they refer to grades differently there.  I mean like 2" / 100".


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Miles,

Welcome to the forum, and congratulations on your enthusiasm and exciting/ambitious plans. You're being prudent in trying to design and vizualize the various interconnected goals and aspects of the layout, before you jump into making sawdust.

Your CAD layout work is excellent, by the way.

A couple of minor points, though admitedly, I have only limited layout experience on my end ...

1. You should delve into NMRA standards to help with "accepted" layout dimensional criteria ... overhead clearance heights, for example. Their free-access guidelines are an enormous wealth of info ... general index, and also "clearances" spec:

http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/consist.html

http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/s-7.html

2. Check your math on your "grade" calcs ... Grade should simply be the rise divided by the run, i.e., vertical elevation divided by length of track rising up to that point. Answer is expressed as a percent, i.e., 0.030 is 3.0% grade.

3. Again, I'm no layout expert, but your proximity of elevated track to base-level track along the mountain areas looks close to me, requiring steep cliff faces. If a "cliff face" is in fact your aesthetic intent, then all's good. But if you've envisioned more of a hillside with plantings, you might want to allow more spacing between high/low sections of track.

4. Your minimum track radius is something you rightfully need to consider. It really depends upon what locos and rolling stock you plan to run. Many mfrs will list minimum required radii for each car. 15" is tight, typical freight stuff, though OK for smaller mining-type cars. 22" is more of a norm ... though, again, delve into NMRA for more documented guidelines.

Best of success with this ... looks like a fabulous project!

TJ


----------



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

Thanks for the kind and helpful words, TJ.



tjcruiser said:


> A couple of minor points, though admitedly, I have only limited layout experience on my end ...


Usually the folks who say they have limited experience are the people worth listening to..



> 1. You should delve into NMRA standards to help with "accepted" layout dimensional criteria ... overhead clearance heights, for example.


That's where I got the 3" figure, and I was wondering if people found that to be conservative, or if I bump up against it I'm asking for trouble..



> Check your math on your "grade" calcs ... Grade should simply be the rise divided by the run, i.e., vertical elevation divided by length of track rising up to that point. Answer is expressed as a percent, i.e., 0.030 is 3.0% grade.


Yes, that's what I thought too...I'm going to file a bug report on the software. 



> Again, I'm no layout expert, but your proximity of elevated track to base-level track along the mountain areas looks close to me, requiring steep cliff faces. If a "cliff face" is in fact your aesthetic intent, then all's good. But if you've envisioned more of a hillside with plantings, you might want to allow more spacing between high/low sections of track.


I was thinking of making a virtue out of necessity on the southwest corner there and putting in a retaining wall going to a cliff for a bit of city atmosphere. But in reality I think its probably too ambitious with my currently non-existing modeling skills, so I'll be looking to move that back (somehow).

One of the thoughts that I had was that I could put almost the entire branch line on the lowest 0" level, and move everything else up by 3-4". That would give me a lot more freedom to move things around later, and I wouldn't have to worry *** much about getting the initial work on the branch line perfectly setup for the later main line work. Would add a little drama as well. Since the branch line only meets the rest of the track at the yard, I could create a few underpasses and make the existing downhill purple runs into upgrades instead. So I'm going to play around a bit with that.

I've really like to get more yard space in there but one thing I never thought of before (besides the basic way that circles work, meaning that turns are big!) is that switches take up a *lot* of space. Which means that after you get off the mainline, and handle A/D, it doesn't leave a lot of room. I need to find a way to get length-wise sooner, but that would mean rearranging the loops.. :O



> 4. Your minimum track radius is something you rightfully need to consider. It really depends upon what locos and rolling stock you plan to run. Many mfrs will list minimum required radii for each car. 15" is tight, typical freight stuff, though OK for smaller mining-type cars. 22" is more of a norm ... though, again, delve into NMRA for more documented guidelines.


Yes, everything seems to be pointing me this way, which is a big change form initial planning. One thing I've tried to ensure is that I have really nice curves (they're close to 24" now) on the outside so when I get the full 10x10 built out I'll hopefully be able to run passenger trains around the outer loop and have them look nice..

thanks again,

Miles


----------



## MadCS (Nov 1, 2010)

*Thoughts on Design*

I agree with TJ your cad visualization is very nice. You've put some very nice considerations into your layout. Some considerations I'll give you from my own experiences are regarding equipment, lengths, and speeds. 

Some nice things are you have an inner "figure 8" loop and and outer "folded dogbone" loop for continuous running of 2 trains, with an operational "hazard" like you wanted being the grade level crossing near the top of the drawing. With this plan you should be able to operate about 3-4 locos and different length trains at the same time without smashing into each other. Not sure what your definition of a "long" train is, but you should be able to get 10 to 15 cars at least on the yellow mainline loop. Also, I don't see any clear reverse loop so wiring should be simpler.

Your yard has a nice runaround track and it looks like you could even squeeze a few more inches of storage and runaround length by shifting the switches to the upper right a few more track pieces without creating any S curve situation. You also have a nice amount of short industry spurs for the size, which will be good operationally for switching.

Regarding #4's I have never had problems operating at a reasonable scale speed over them with most 4 axle/6 axle style diesels. Steamers may pose a challenge and they are more of a challenge with 18" radius. If you keep your #4's and snaps toward the front half of the layout and use #6 in the back part of the yellow main and the mainline "runaround" siding just outside the yard you should not have any problem. My personal rule for radius: larger is always better looking, 6 axles/~60' scale cars operate on no less than 22", 4 axles/~50' scale cars no less than 18", 15" for switchers and 40' scale cars only at very low speed. Passenger and steamers (unless smaller and shorter variants) I keep to 24" min.

The inner "purple" line going uphill from the yard and then crossing it will need to be set aside for smaller locos, like GP's & Switchers because of the tighter radius. Additionally, that grade on the inner track will need shorter, lighter, slower trains to operate well, but since you mentioned the purple is a "branch" line then shorter trains and older power are likely anyway.

Will you be putting this in the middle of a room so you can walk around the "back" side of the layout? If not you may need to consider how to access to that area in a worst case event.

Now I will play devils advocate... Have you considered reversing your elevations such that the yellow "main" loop is the lowest and everything goes upward from there? This way your mine track receives loads from a coaling chute and gives you a sort of logging line/uphill branch line feel for the other track areas.


----------



## Smokestack Lightning (Oct 31, 2010)

Looks great man:thumbsup: Make it happen


----------



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

*I didn't stop*

 Thanks.

OK, like I said I *can't* leave well enough alone...


























I'll describe my thought process (such as it is) in a later email..note again that the terrain is not all filled in. The areas toward the back will be filled in with mountains and many of the gaps are actually tunnels.


----------



## MadCS (Nov 1, 2010)

Miles,
I guess I'll take the first stab at this variation:
This is a neat variation that breaks down to the basics of one single track mainline with reversing loops at each end, one end of which has an alternate reversing loop. (Yellow loop, Purple loop, or Purple White combo loop). 

The yard and runaround track size is nice, and it looks like the clearances (horizontally) are better since you said some of that area will be in tunnels anyway.

If you choose to build this get really familiar with the wiring and operation of a reversing loop segment. 

Also, I see a couple of S-curve related issues that can be dealt with by shifting a switch or two with a straight track segment. One these is located at the intersection of white and purple to the rightmost curved purple segment where a train going from the lower left to the upper right travels to the rightmost line of both switches. If those are #6 or #8 it may not be a problem, but you can see it clearly from the 2nd image pointing straight down the purple a/d or mainline yard track.
The second is located at the yellow switch on the left middle area of the board on the upper mountain side as it crosses the purple line. Particularly a train in the shorter layover siding would traverse it. The last S-curve is on the purple line near the upper middle right section where it diverges into the purple reversing loop. As I said, all of these can be adjusted for with a short 3" to 6" straight segment, but may adjust your tolerances on other parts of the track.

Also, whenever possible it is nice to have straight or relatively straight industrial trackwork for switching moves because most models have difficulty coupling and uncoupling on a curve.

Again, it is a really nice variation that with the consideration above would be viable. This variation would support one longer train, one shorter train in the layover going the opposite direction or being overtaken by the longer, and a yard switcher decently.

I think all of us would like to know what CAD software you're using.
Respectfully,


----------



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

OK, based on Dave's suggestions and some other cleanup. There are still a lot of bits to fiddle with here. I've got a couple of practical considerations.. Since we live far from anywhere I need to have a good sense of what to order and plan for as it all gets shipped or taken over the border. Second, my eight year old is getting really bored with all of the planning so we went ahead and laid some track -- a lot of the purple is now done (except for the reversing part and some siding.)










One of my main goals was to have some somewhat long runs where the trains have something of the illusion of disappearing into the distance, and also creating a lot of visual separation so that there would be a number of "vistas" or vantage points that could be their own separate compositions.


























































And yes, I should say something about the software. It was all created in Rail Modeler -- http://www.railmodeller.com/. It's a really elegant application written by a small team. Very intuitive interface and so much fun to work with that I've spent far too much time on it. (I'm a software developer so using stuff this well done makes me very happy.)

Specific replies to follow.


----------



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

Dave, some replies to your earlier note.. Thanks Dave and others for some very thoughtful and incredibly helpful responses. 



MadCS said:


> Also, I don't see any clear reverse loop so wiring should be simpler.


Not having a reversing loop was one of the main reasons i went back to the drawing board. The other was that I realized that if I just moved the yard up I could clear up a lot of space. That meant giving up a few cool things from the prior design but it is worth it.



> My personal rule for radius: larger is always better looking, 6 axles/~60' scale cars operate on no less than 22", 4 axles/~50' scale cars no less than 18", 15" for switchers and 40' scale cars only at very low speed. Passenger and steamers (unless smaller and shorter variants) I keep to 24" min.
> 
> The inner "purple" line going uphill from the yard and then crossing it will need to be set aside for smaller locos, like GP's & Switchers because of the tighter radius. Additionally, that grade on the inner track will need shorter, lighter, slower trains to operate well, but since you mentioned the purple is a "branch" line then shorter trains and older power are likely anyway.


I've had to compromise a fair amount on the radii, but I think those compromises are worth the gain.. My goal was to have an outside run that is > 24" -- that won't be completed until the full build out which could be years form now, but the plan is to add two additional panels to the south-east corner making a perfect square with a hole in the middle.

All of the mainline runs (light-yellow and yellow) are (barely) 22" -- I'm hoping to run 6 axle diesels on it and maybe sneak some light passenger traffic on it. The one big compromise is that the bottom level reverse loop has to be 18". I'm hoping that will be big enough to use to turn around the bigger diesels and 60' cars..I know it won't look good, but I'm hoping it will operate reasonably smoothly..?

The mine is 15" deliberately -- the idea is to run 40' coal cars and small switchers there. I really wanted to sneak something with switch-backs onto the layout.

The branch (purple) line is all 18" and that will be 40axle diesel and prob stick to 40 or 50' stock.



> Will you be putting this in the middle of a room so you can walk around the "back" side of the layout? If not you may need to consider how to access to that area in a worst case event.


So, the back side is where the mountains will be and yes the circle in the middle and then sides leading directly from it will all be assessable from behind. This will allow the branch line and lower main-line (light-yellow) tracks that will be under the mountains to be easily accessible. We should also be able to squeeze in some fiddling space in there so we could have a through freight or something parked in there.



> Now I will play devils advocate... Have you considered reversing your elevations such that the yellow "main" loop is the lowest and everything goes upward from there? This way your mine track receives loads from a coaling chute and gives you a sort of logging line/uphill branch line feel for the other track areas.


No I hadn't and that is great idea..I really like the idea of the uphill logging and that was actually on my very first design -- though I'm committed now as I mention above I have the purple line built. We did it this way because we want to get some experience building in stages. So first build some simple sectional track without grades for branch line and then build up to (hopefully) better layed main-line. But the mine is at the top. So operationally it is separated from the branch line. That should create some interesting problems...like how do you get the road switcher up the main line track in the first place. Or do you keep an old one up there just to move the coal cars around, etc..


----------



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

MadCS said:


> This is a neat variation that breaks down to the basics of one single track mainline with reversing loops at each end, one end of which has an alternate reversing loop. (Yellow loop, Purple loop, or Purple White combo loop).


Yes, after looking at some different layouts, I decided that I really like the idea of having a point to point style of operation that supported continuous operation and of course having two reversing loops is the only way (??) to accomplish that if you want to use same track both ways. I've added a passing track now as well so that might give some more multiple train options.

BTW, appropos your earlier point about branch line on top, around here (BC) the main-line trains are the one's that head up the mountains. 



> The yard and runaround track size is nice, and it looks like the clearances (horizontally) are better since you said some of that area will be in tunnels anyway.


Exactly, I was worried in general that the tolerances were too tight and wanted to give myself some more wiggle return. Having a single return makes it less likely I'll run into a problem that I can't fix.



> If you choose to build this get really familiar with the wiring and operation of a reversing loop segment.


So I'm using DCC and I was thinking -- probably naively -- that I could just throw some auto-reverses somewhere in the loops and be on my merry way? Or is that just wishful thining?



> Also, I see a couple of S-curve related issues that can be dealt with by shifting a switch or two with a straight track segment.


Thanks for your gentle reminder! And I just noticed that on my version that I spent a bunch of time on trying to get rid of all of those S-curves, another one snuck in! :O (Where the main-line siding diverges off into the mine.)



> Also, whenever possible it is nice to have straight or relatively straight industrial trackwork for switching moves because most models have difficulty coupling and uncoupling on a curve.


That's the first thing we noticed playing around with the trains -- just how wonky that could get. I've replaced my couplers with Kadees - amazing what a difference that makes, but I'll go through and try to think more about how and where things are going to need to couple and uncouple. I'm afraid I'm trying to cram too much in so maybe some of those sidings just need to go period.



> I think all of us would like to know what CAD software you're using.


See note above.


----------



## MadCS (Nov 1, 2010)

Miles,
Thanks for letting all of us have a look at your layout plans. I think you made some very good plans each time with a fair consideration for the various trade-offs that are important to you. That of course is what it is all about. If you aren't happy running the trains, then why bother with the whole layout, right? It may be a trick of the eyes with the straight track, but it looks like this revision gives you a lot more room in the industry spurs and on the passing and arrival/departure sidings.

Here in my part of the eastern US we have an interesting mix of low and "up and over" mainlines. I live near the CSX (old C&O) westbound mainline that goes up a mountain, through a tunnel at the top and snakes its way back down the other side to then follow the river banks most of the way west. It is definitely a different perspective for me to consider how the prototypes operate in BC. 

I can't say much in regard to the DCC reversing units, as I have never personally installed one. However, on the layouts I have operated where they were incorporated they appear to work well. Sometimes they have a little lag between detecting the short and switching the polarity. I don't know what model or manufacturer they use. This isn't really a problem unless you're explicitly focused on the movement of the train. 

As I said, this may be because the model/manufacturer/age of existing equipment. From the few things I've read from a few manufacturers most of these delay/detection times appear to be programmable to some extent. Also, I imagine some of this could be fooled with a little if you set the isolated section of the reversing block back in an accessible mountain or other less conspicuous location.

I will soon be in the same boat of choosing a reversing unit as I continue my own layout build, so if you find one you like please let me know.

Respectfully,


----------



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

MadCS said:


> It may be a trick of the eyes with the straight track, but it looks like this revision gives you a lot more room in the industry spurs and on the passing and arrival/departure sidings.


I think it is cleaner for sure.



> Here in my part of the eastern US we have an interesting mix of low and "up and over" mainlines. I live near the CSX (old C&O) westbound mainline that goes up a mountain, through a tunnel at the top and snakes its way back down the other side to then follow the river banks most of the way west. It is definitely a different perspective for me to consider how the prototypes operate in BC.


Yeah, I think your tagline said you were out western VA. It's quite beautiful out there -- I was able to escape DC when I lived out there and get back into the mountains -- I was really surprised at the relative topography coming form the western US mountain states I thought all of the east coast was basically flat but not the case out there. Especially in the western US you have the classic up and over lines -- we used to live near the Moffit tunnel in CO at 9k'. In contrast BC is interesting because even though there are "ranges" they are all crammed together so it really is just one mountain after another. (IF you look at a relief map you can see that the Rockies, Sierras, and Coastals all merge into one big blob. The fact that they ever got an East-West line running to Vancouver is pretty amazing. The trains tend to follow the lakes where possible everything is very irregular. But that is some pretty intense terrain as well -- trains perched on granite cliff walls with deep lakes below -- in fact sadly a pair of CP locomotives derailed into Kootenay lake not too far from here in '95.



> I can't say much in regard to the DCC reversing units, as I have never personally installed one. However, on the layouts I have operated where they were incorporated they appear to work well...As I said, this may be because the model/manufacturer/age of existing equipment. From the few things I've read from a few manufacturers most of these delay/detection times appear to be programmable to some extent. Also, I imagine some of this could be fooled with a little if you set the isolated section of the reversing block back in an accessible mountain or other less conspicuous location.


I'll let you know how it goes..yes, I was looking at Digitrax manual and it looks like you can set the delay. At this point I'm not even sure where to put the isolating blocks but hopefully I'll be able to figure that out and let you know how it goes. DCC is one thing that made me interested in getting into this.


----------



## Miles Parker (Oct 13, 2010)

One other quick general question. I think I read somewhere that switch issues were generally a factor for the diverging route much more than the straight route. In other words, it might be ok to run a #4 to diverge to a branch line from a mainline for local traffic only? Or perhaps even a snap switch?


----------

