# Uffington-Davis Line design thread



## Stejones82

Greetings all,

Attached are my best-to-date track plan visions. I do appreciate your input.

1. benchwork is fixed. Scale is HO. Digitrax Zephyr and DT602 already in hand. Era projected as 30s-40s upper Midwest Great Lakes.

2. I want continuous loop with some interesting switching/shunting. 90% of of op time will be me solo, but I want the option of multi operators.

3. I want a reversing loop so I can return head first into the yard

4. I started this really wanting a port scene as I am former Navy and dig harbors. So the port is the best I can do. I plan to use an operating bascule bridge to allow maritime traffic. I have a line on a tramp steamer that is only 12 1:1 inches and a pier. Both those are in the drawing to scale. I am worried that it is too busy and the bridge would be so massive that it would ungainly dominate the layout. Plus every loop will have to cross the bridge. Not sure about that.

5. So I drew up a modified twice around circuit, and then modified. That is _1 and _2. Perhaps it is not a true twice around, but you can that that turnouts will allow that course. Also the turnouts work as passing sidings.

6. Yes, each layout has a wee bit of a loop or two "off" the board. I will handle that with a piece of hardboard and foam extension. I plan to adapt some side rails to help prevent deep-gorge fall-offs.

7. Obliviously, a weakness is the main line runs within 2 inches of board edge. My plan is affix some clear plexiglass along the side fascia to again prevent deep-gorge fall-offs. 

8. I'm thinking 4 power management sections, two with auto-reversers.

There is lots more to discuss, but I have to run. I do welcome all constructive comments and suggestions. Cheers!

Steve


----------



## Dennis461

Is it stuffed into the corner of a room, or can you reach all 4(6) sides?


----------



## DonR

I would have to do a 'red rail/black rail' drawing to be certain
but the way I see your track plans you have 3 'reverse loops';
One 'within' the other at the top and another at the bottom,
plus the turntable which would require a 3rd reverse controller
unless it has one built in.

There is no need to have any 'power management' sectors...
your main DCC bus would be sufficient. These are mainly
used on very large 'club' type layouts that have multi
operators. They keep the main tracks powered when there
is a derail short somewhere.

Don


----------



## Stejones82

The entire north edge is against a wall, as is the east part of the yard. All other edges are free. The heavy red lines are walls. So the NE corner of the yard is a long reach. Perhaps I am to optimistic that not much intervention will be required there. I'm thinking an EM uncoupler to allow the road locomotive to detach, and the crossover to escape. 

Outside loops are 22 inch, inside 18. Inner spurs have some 15 inch radius for an industrial switcher (Plymouth 3 axle).


----------



## rsv1ho

30's/40's era. How about a scale rough hewn rail fence instead of Plexiglas. 

I like your design, especially the railyard and turntable/roundhouse positions.


----------



## BigGRacing

I think it looks great as well !
I like the first one most though, with the two lines


----------



## wvgca

first one seems a little better,, allows more of the 'rail fanning' approach where you just sit and watch, lol


----------



## MichaelE

Add eight inches to the width and use 24" and 22" radius curves. You'll be glad you did when trains are running.


----------



## Dennis461

Stejones82 said:


> The entire north edge is against a wall, as is the east part of the yard. All other edges are free. The heavy red lines are walls. So the NE corner of the yard is a long reach. ...


Okay, I would not build it. You cannot reach over half of the layout.


----------



## MichaelE

You might need an access hole right where your two industrual track are at the top of the layout to be able to reach the back and far top of the layout. That last track in the yard at the crossover is going to be a long reach too the first time a derailment occurs. Your trackwork needs to be absolutely impeccable back there, and still could be caused by the geometry, couplers, or trucks on the rolling stock.

Any chance of a framed-out access window in that wall at layout level?


----------



## CTValleyRR

Dennis461 said:


> Okay, I would not build it. You cannot reach over half of the layout.


My thoughts exactly. Assuming that North is at the top, most of that area is out of reach. You might be able to reach in there using a topside creeper, but while those work for things that you do infrequently, having to use one to uncouple in the yard is a non-starter. Do a reach test at the proposed height of your layout, I suspect you will find that 30" or so is about the farthest you can reach (2-1/2 squares with the grid lines, or two diagonally).


----------



## traction fan

Stejones82 said:


> Greetings all,
> 
> Attached are my best-to-date track plan visions. I do appreciate your input.
> 
> 1. benchwork is fixed. Scale is HO. Digitrax Zephyr and DT602 already in hand. Era projected as 30s-40s upper Midwest Great Lakes.
> 
> 2. I want continuous loop with some interesting switching/shunting. 90% of of op time will be me solo, but I want the option of multi operators.
> 
> 3. I want a reversing loop so I can return head first into the yard
> 
> 4. I started this really wanting a port scene as I am former Navy and dig harbors. So the port is the best I can do. I plan to use an operating bascule bridge to allow maritime traffic. I have a line on a tramp steamer that is only 12 1:1 inches and a pier. Both those are in the drawing to scale. I am worried that it is too busy and the bridge would be so massive that it would ungainly dominate the layout. Plus every loop will have to cross the bridge. Not sure about that.
> 
> 5. So I drew up a modified twice around circuit, and then modified. That is _1 and _2. Perhaps it is not a true twice around, but you can that that turnouts will allow that course. Also the turnouts work as passing sidings.
> 
> 6. Yes, each layout has a wee bit of a loop or two "off" the board. I will handle that with a piece of hardboard and foam extension. I plan to adapt some side rails to help prevent deep-gorge fall-offs.
> 
> 7. Obliviously, a weakness is the main line runs within 2 inches of board edge. My plan is affix some clear plexiglass along the side fascia to again prevent deep-gorge fall-offs.
> 
> 8. I'm thinking 4 power management sections, two with auto-reversers.
> 
> There is lots more to discuss, but I have to run. I do welcome all constructive comments and suggestions. Cheers!
> 
> Steve


Steve;

All three of the plans look very "track heavy" to me. There is a lot of track, a lot of turnouts, and very little room for much of anything else. That may not matter to you, and it's your railroad.
In the real world everybody doesn't have a railroad track, or two, or six, in their backyard.

I don't understand the need for three approach tracks going onto the turntable. I see that one has engine service facilities, and the second would be needed for an engine to get around another locomotive which was stopped for water, sand, or fuel. But why the third approach track? Multiple tracks on the other side, going to the roundhouse make perfect sense, but I don't understand the extra approach track.

My quick eyeball count showed 20 turnouts. At $20-$30 each, that many turnouts are going to add up to $400-$600. Quite a lot of cost. Have you considered that?
All that said, It looks like a lot of model railroads, though not much like a real one. Many don't mind that at all, some prefer less track, and more realism, that's strictly your choice, though fitting HO-scale curves into that limited amount of space does sort of force your hand.

A large bridge, or a harbor, can be a signature feature of your layout, and needn't necessarily be rejected because of it's size. It is a trade-off though. If you have the bridge, then something else may have to go.
On my own layout, the near N-scale model of Seattle Union Station takes up so much room that I don't have much left for more than a few other buildings in "downtown Seattle", Structure flats, and a painted backdrop will help.

That corner you can't reach will have its full share of accidents, and of course the track will need to be cleaned back there just like any other track.
An electromagnetic uncoupler won't be practical if you can't see it.

An access hatch means ducking under the layout, which gets old fast. Sooner or later, you will hit your head, or back, and possibly knock some trains off the track, as you try to get into/out of it.
Perhaps it would be better to mount the layout on heavy-duty casters (with toe-operated brakes to hold it steady when your not moving it)
Then, room space permitting, you could move the whole layout away from the wall to access the back side.

Good Luck & Have Fun with whatever you choose;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## kilowatt62

I dunno guys. Based on a 30" or so reach, I see only the extreme north-east corner being the tuffy here. Minor inconvenience. I dont see much in the way of derailments there. 
The two reverse loops in design 'a' are not opposites. Meaning they both turn train around from one direction but not the other. Otherwise that dual main in 'a' thing would get my vote. Design b and c are the same to me other than the turntable area. 
I say set Most of the track down for test runs to see if you still like the design. Go for it brother.


----------



## Stejones82

Doesn't bode well for my patient modeling skills if I made a error on this post! 

The two port scenes are virtually the same. Sorry about that (note I have edited OP o delete the repetitive drawing) This is the one I meant to post. But it is a predecessor to _2 so you can see the evolution. I did put in two dimensions for reference. 

Yes, top of the drawing is both actual and layout 'North.' Benchwork is fixed. Hard fixed as in already built and used max available space. To the west is a minimum walkway into the room on other side of north edge. Could go farther south, but that is at the limit of negotiated ROW. East is already pretty tight for aisleway. 

Framed window access to the NE corner ... .... .... hmmm, might could be done. Behind that wall is guest room/wife's office. The access would be over the bed, but still might could be done. 

TF - yes I am prepared for the costs, though I appreciate your warnings. I have been accumulating items over the months. I have all the TOs in hand for the yard (ME HO Code 70 Ladder System); three Walthers/Shinohara curved TOs, and now 5 PECO #5 TOs. The TT is a Walthers 90 foot (in hand) and is pre-configured for DCC/reversing. RH is in hand. 

It is track-heavy. Being new, I of course, "want it all." Like my old boss used to say, "Can you make it smaller and put more stuff into it?" I do appreciate you comment re the bridge: If that is what I want to dominate, then let it dominate. It is a cool whiz-bang; though I am concerned that if it is mechanically unreliable, then that affects the entire mainline run. And I can not give much more space to the water/harbor, and it looks pretty small even now. Sure, This merely represents/suggests a true harbor, but even I want it to look somewhat realistic (I realize that will raise some eyebrows!). 

So I think I am leaning towards the modified twice around for more interesting operation. 

Thanks all for the reviews - willing to listen even to negative comments/critique if it helps my layout and me as a modeller! 

Steve


----------



## CTValleyRR

kilowatt62 said:


> I dunno guys. Based on a 30" or so reach, I see only the extreme north-east corner being the tuffy here. Minor inconvenience. I dont see much in the way of derailments there.
> The two reverse loops in design 'a' are not opposites. Meaning they both turn train around from one direction but not the other. Otherwise that dual main in 'a' thing would get my vote. Design b and c are the same to me other than the turntable area.
> I say set Most of the track down for test runs to see if you still like the design. Go for it brother.


He says the heavy red lines are walls. If I'm understanding that correctly, that would put much of the roundhouse and almost all of the yard area in the upper right out of reach. Assuming each block is 1 foot, that means the upper letf (NW) corner's back two tracks, as well as most of the track leading down the left side out of reach, too.


----------



## kilowatt62

Respectfully. Only NE area is a bit of a stretch. Yes, roundhouse area tricky but doable. There is not a wall anywhere on west side of layout, per OP's words. So reaching NW corner is easily done from two places. Due north in the yard is a 30" at most.


----------



## CTValleyRR

kilowatt62 said:


> Respectfully. Only NE area is a bit of a stretch. Yes, roundhouse area tricky but doable. There is not a wall anywhere on west side of layout, per OP's words. So reaching NW corner is easily done from two places. Due north in the yard is a 30" at most.


Ah, ok. I missed that about the west (left) side being free also. Part of that is my design bias: when I design a layout, I leave an empty square on any side that isn't blocked by an obstruction to clearly designate where the available aisles are.


----------



## Stejones82

I would be glad of some more feedback. I have cleaned up a little. 

1. Took out one superfluous track leading to turntable. That gives more space at the 'corner' which I envision as prime operating space. 

2. I am thinking about maybe adding a 'program' track there, i.e. lower left of the TT along the edge. Should be easy to wire an isolating DPDT and plug into my Zephyr. 

3. I took out one TO in the south spurs. That was merely to give a resting place for the industrial switcher I envision working the industries. But, in reality, I can park it most anywhere. 

4. I still envision this as a modified twice around. The op plan is to allow road freights to leave the yard head first and take the outer loop, then the inner loop, and then drop cars for the industries and then take the reversing loop to return to the yard headfirst. Once in the yard on the main, there would be an EM uncoupler to disconnect the steam locomotive and allow it to 'escape' to first ladder branch. The to get to the engine servicing area and RH. Steam/diesel switcher would 'work' the ladder, preparing outbound strings. 

5. While the road loco is out on the main loops, also the switchers can classify in the yard. This will give me opportunity to let the road run the loops while working the yard and even maybe the industries, although I can see that would be a challenge. 

6. Again, the entire north edge is against a wall, entire west edge is free. Most of the east is is free standing, except where the 'L' goes into an alcove, which is portrayed by the heavy red lines. 

Thoughts? COmments? SUggestions? all welcome, TIA

Steve


----------



## Old_Hobo

I like number 4.....and I can easily reach 29 inches, actually up to 39 inches comfortably, so I think it will be fine.....


----------



## Lemonhawk

You might consider putting the "program track" on one of the main loops using 3 blocks. When running, the 3 blocks are on the main rail power, but when in program mode the 1st and 3rd block are dead and the middle block is connected to the program output. Then when you make changes switch to main mode and try out the changes and if necessary position the loco back on the program block and revise things. The program track avoids the Program on the main problem of programing to many locos.


----------



## traction fan

Stejones82 said:


> I would be glad of some more feedback. I have cleaned up a little.
> 
> 1. Took out one superfluous track leading to turntable. That gives more space at the 'corner' which I envision as prime operating space.
> 
> 2. I am thinking about maybe adding a 'program' track there, i.e. lower left of the TT along the edge. Should be easy to wire an isolating DPDT and plug into my Zephyr.
> 
> 3. I took out one TO in the south spurs. That was merely to give a resting place for the industrial switcher I envision working the industries. But, in reality, I can park it most anywhere.
> 
> 4. I still envision this as a modified twice around. The op plan is to allow road freights to leave the yard head first and take the outer loop, then the inner loop, and then drop cars for the industries and then take the reversing loop to return to the yard headfirst. Once in the yard on the main, there would be an EM uncoupler to disconnect the steam locomotive and allow it to 'escape' to first ladder branch. The to get to the engine servicing area and RH. Steam/diesel switcher would 'work' the ladder, preparing outbound strings.
> 
> 5. While the road loco is out on the main loops, also the switchers can classify in the yard. This will give me opportunity to let the road run the loops while working the yard and even maybe the industries, although I can see that would be a challenge.
> 
> 6. Again, the entire north edge is against a wall, entire west edge is free. Most of the east is is free standing, except where the 'L' goes into an alcove, which is portrayed by the heavy red lines.
> 
> Thoughts? COmments? SUggestions? all welcome, TIA
> 
> Steve


Steve;

Given your available space, and the curve radii dictated by your modeling scale, I think you have a good plan. I also think your idea of a full-time dedicated programing track to the left of the turntable, is very smart.

When you say, "the entire west edge is free," does that mean there is enough space along that western edge for you to walk along that side of the layout? (One of the problems I have in evaluating your benchwork & track plans, is not being able to see the surrounding room.)
I assume that your layout is the size and shape shown on your plans because you don't have room for anything more.
For instance, if there is a walkable "aisle" along the west side of the layout, that would mean you could reach the main section of your layout from both sides. That, in turn opens up the option of visually dividing the main section of your table into two separate scenes, with a double-sided backdrop. This would be very useful for disguising the ("round & round the little train goes" look,) so common to many layouts. Instead, the train would simply enter a given scene, do any switching needed, and then move out of that scene, and on to the next, just as the prototype does.
This may, or may not, be something you want to do of course. On your railroad, you rule.

My layout is set up this way, and I think the way the trains are seen to be traveling along from one town to another, looks very realistic. I have plenty of places where there actually are many tracks close to each other, and filling up most of my very restricted space.
These are two of the things I preach against, but my layout doesn't look like a gaggle of pointless track cramming because about half the track is hidden from view. (It is, however, accessible for track cleaning, and maintenance, via removable backdrops, & sections of scenery.) 
It's all about manipulating the viewer's perception when we face the impossible task of representing something as huge as a real railroad in our always-too-small spaces.

Looks better each time!

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Stejones82

Yes, the entire west edge is free standing with a walkway the entire length. Just to the left of the west edge on the north wall is a doorway into the spare bedroom/wife's-office. There is a piano in that walkway, but still the entire west edge is available and hence the tabletop is reachable. The only long reach is the NE corner in the alcove. 


Thanks TF!! Your good opinion is compliment indeed! 

I have thought about a 'divider' to break the views And will keep thinking about it . First idea is to go from NW corner, over the four curves, due south and then ease over to the SW corner. 

Now to mount that Turntable.


----------



## Stejones82

Some pictures of the space for perspective


----------



## traction fan

Stejones82 said:


> Some pictures of the space for perspective


Seejones82;

Thanks for the photos of your space. That clears a lot of questions in my mind. I also think I have been confusing your room/layout situation with that of another member (deboone) who has a similar size HO-scale layout in roughly the same size room (I think.)
His layout is sort of 'C'-shaped, rather than your 'L'-shape, though. You have excellent access to your layout, except for the right hand end. Are you sure you want to mount your turntable in that somewhat constricted alcove? Turntables are not easy to install, and tend to be quite high maintenance. If you "flipped" your present track plan "upside down", that would put the turntable close to that nice open aisle on the west side of the layout. I suggest this might be worth thinking about.

I see you have your basic oval set up. I don't know if it is glued down yet, or not. You wouldn't necessarily have to flip the entire plan, in order to re-locate the turntable to the west side. That whole top area, against the wall with the door in it, could be one long yard. the turntable, round house, and engine service facilities could be near the west end, and the yard tracks on the east side continuing on into the alcove section. Yard tracks, once installed and wired, don't need much maintenance, other than occasional cleaning.
Turntables, on the other hand, are inherently complicated mechanisms. The motor must drive the turntable and stop very precisely at the exact point where each set of rails line up exactly with the rails on the turntable bridge, and they have to do the same at the opposite end of the bridge too. This is called "indexing", and there are several ways to do it. They range in complexity from manual rotation and eyeball indexing, clear on up to microprocessor controlled systems. Other than the first, (hand & eyeball) option, all may need fairly frequent adjustment. So its a good idea to mount a turntable where you have a good close-up view of it, and can get at the workings easily.

The only other suggestions I have are:
1) Rounding off the table's projecting corners. These can, and sooner or later will, potentially injure you as you run around to grab a locomotive that is headed for disaster. 
2) You also might look at skewing the oval a bit, so that your long straight sections don't run dead parallel to the table edge. Track tends to look more interesting, (and less like nearly every other layout ever built😄) when set up this way. It can sometimes create some more usable spaces for scenery or structures too. 

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Stejones82

Thanks again, TF - very helpful suggestions. 

1. Maybe I am locked in mentally to the yard, TT, and RH as-is, but I'm not seeing a decent way to 'flip' and still connect to the main table loops. I do already have all the TOs for the ladder in hand, so changing orientation (left to right diverging) would be expensive. 

2. The oval currently on the table is just some Atlas True Track I bought back in December just to get going a little. It is not glued down and will not be part of the permanent layout. It is just for some fun while planning and then beginning construction. I realize I can remove the track sections from the plastic roadbed, but I do not plan to do that. I plan to use Micro Engineering Code 83 flextrack and PECO and Walthers turnouts for the main loops. 

3. Rounding or even angling the corners is a good idea. 

Do you use Anyrail? I can attach or send you the base file if you want to take the time to show me what you're thinking regarding the RH/TT in the NW corner.


----------



## traction fan

Stejones82 said:


> Thanks again, TF - very helpful suggestions.
> 
> 1. Maybe I am locked in mentally to the yard, TT, and RH as-is, but I'm not seeing a decent way to 'flip' and still connect to the main table loops. I do already have all the TOs for the ladder in hand, so changing orientation (left to right diverging) would be expensive.
> 
> 2. The oval currently on the table is just some Atlas True Track I bought back in December just to get going a little. It is not glued down and will not be part of the permanent layout. It is just for some fun while planning and then beginning construction. I realize I can remove the track sections from the plastic roadbed, but I do not plan to do that. I plan to use Micro Engineering Code 83 flextrack and PECO and Walthers turnouts for the main loops.
> 
> 3. Rounding or even angling the corners is a good idea.
> 
> Do you use Anyrail? I can attach or send you the base file if you want to take the time to show me what you're thinking regarding the RH/TT in the NW corner.


Stejones82;

No, I don't use Anyrail. I'm an old analog geezer, and my idea of "track planning software" is a soft #2 pencil, some paper, and a ruler. 😄
The only important point I was trying to make was to get the turntable over to the west side of your layout, where you will be able to see, and maintain, it better. If you honestly have really good eyeball and hand access to it in your originally planned (east alcove) location, then moving it may not be necessary at all.

However, the access didn't look good to me in your photos. It looked like you would be standing on that step stool, and leaning around a corner, to see, and reach, the turntable. That would make lining up the rails by eyeball, quite difficult, and also get very uncomfortable for your spine pretty quickly. If that's true, then be kind to yourself. Don't kid yourself into thinking, "Oh its not that bad, I can handle it." It will feel a lot worse with repetition over time, and you may someday come to regret installing the turntable in that less accessible location. 

I just noticed the note on one of your drawings that says you are using the Micro Engineering condensed ladder system. That, obviously isn't reversible, and won't work as individual turnouts elsewhere, at least not easily. However, looking again at your last track plan, it looks to me like the entire yard could be rotated 180 degrees in a flat, horizontal, plane, rather than flipping it vertically. That would mean the turntable would be on the west side, and also that the Micro Engineering ladder could stay intact, and still be used. You wouldn't need to replace it. Doing this might mean changing your connecting tracks from the main line loops to the yard, or possibly vertically flipping the entire main line loop section, while horizontally rotating the yard section. Whichever is easier.

On the subject of turnouts, You mentioned that you planned to use Peco, and "Walthers" (Shinohara?) turnouts as well as Micro Engineering's yard throat. All are good brands, but do all of them come with the "DCC compatible configuration" built in ? I know that Micro Engineering's turnouts, and Peco's new "Unifrog" turnouts do have this factory-installed, but I don't know about the Walthers turnouts. Peco "Electrofrogs" can be modified for DCC, and their "Insulfrogs" will work with DCC, though they have plastic frogs. The file below, "All about turnouts" explains the DCC compatible/friendly configuration. I'm assuming you are planning to use DCC. 

I have rounded off corners by screwing & gluing a 45 degree piece of 1 x 3 & 1 x 2 'L'-girder across the inside of a 90 degree corner, moving any legs as needed, and then cutting off the projecting 90 degree piece. If you use extruded foam and/or plywood on top, that can be cut to a curve with a saber saw. My own layout has rounded corners and the Luan fascia board is warped around the curve. (see photo) This not only looks nice, it won't hurt me when I bump into it. (I have a disability that means I walk a bit oddly and tend to stagger around and bump into things more than most people.)

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Stejones82

Thanks for the heads up on the TOs, TF, I actually have your guides from a few months ago. I am checking the TOs pretty careful. The PECO are great as is (Insulfrog), as are the ME (I will power the frogs of those); The Walthers are the SHinohara version. The only thing that concerns me with them is the points are connected to the closure rails with what look to be rail joiners. They seem pretty loose. I tightened them up with a very fine nose plier, and the electrical connection seemed to improve. Looks like that will be an ongoing maintenance requirement. 

I have started to see the new Walthers TOs in LHS, but limited quantities. So I will probably steer clear of them.


----------



## traction fan

Stejones82 said:


> Thanks for the heads up on the TOs, TF, I actually have your guides from a few months ago. I am checking the TOs pretty careful. The PECO are great as is (Insulfrog), as are the ME (I will power the frogs of those); The Walthers are the SHinohara version. The only thing that concerns me with them is the points are connected to the closure rails with what look to be rail joiners. They seem pretty loose. I tightened them up with a very fine nose plier, and the electrical connection seemed to improve. Looks like that will be an ongoing maintenance requirement.
> 
> I have started to see the new Walthers TOs in LHS, but limited quantities. So I will probably steer clear of them.


Stejones82;

It sounds like the Walthers/Shinohara turnouts you have are similar to those used by my old club. Could you post a photo of one please? Using rail joiners for point pivots is actually a fairly common, and generally reliable, system.
What kind of switch machine do you plan to use to operate your turnouts?

If the Shinohara/Walthers turnout's rail joiners do prove to be "an ongoing maintenance problem", you can eliminate that two ways. If you're using Tortoise, Switchmaster, or some other powerful DC stall motor switch machine, you could try soldering the rail joiners on one of the Shinohara turnouts. This would mean "bending the iron" just like a prototype turnout. This takes a certain amount of force.
I make my turnouts with no pivots, and use stall motors to operate them. This "bending the iron" works fine for me. (see photo)

On the other hand, if you're going to use Peco, (or for some insane reason Atlas  ) twin-coil solenoid machines, then I would not solder the actual rail joiners, but rather solder small gauge jumper wires around the joints. That way they can pivot freely, but will have constant power to the point rails too. Before doing either, make sure that each of the point rails is insulated from the frog though. Otherwise you may create a dead short.

The Peco Insulfrogs are good turnouts, but their plastic frogs may possibly stall some locomotives which only pick up power from a few of their wheels. A locomotive with all-wheel pickup should run smoothly through them though.
I prefer powered metal frogs like the Electrofrog, or new Unifrog have. My own scratchbuilt turnouts have isolated metal frogs that are powered, like those on Micro Engineering turnouts.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Magic

The new Walthers #6 turnout.
Insulated Metal frog. Has an easy tab for a frog juicer.
They are all live rails just like the old ones. No power routing.
Sprung throw bar like Peco.
Point rails are one piece, just like the real ones. No pivot joint to go bad.
Looks like completely new tooling.
It's hard to see in the pic but they are pretty long.
Looks like a high quality turnout.










Magic


----------



## Stejones82

Two of the Walthers-Shinohara TOs. I am leaving toward the servo switch machines with Tam Valley controllers


----------



## CTValleyRR

I have been using the old Wlathers turnouts for years without issues -- but I have never relied on any piece of track to feed power. I always put a feeder in each leg of track downstream of a turnout.

It's gratifying to hear from Magic that the new ines are good quality. i hope they match the others in appearance, because I've been waiting on them to get the last dozen I need to finish.

As far as the Tam Valley Depot solution goes, I've been a big fan of their products ever since meeting Duncan Mcree (the owner) at the Amherst Train Show, probably 15 years ago, and getting a hands on demo. Now I swear by them and use nothing else for my turnouts.


----------



## traction fan

Magic said:


> The new Walthers #6 turnout.
> Insulated Metal frog. Has an easy tab for a frog juicer.
> They are all live rails just like the old ones. No power routing.
> Sprung throw bar like Peco.
> Point rails are one piece, just like the real ones. No pivot joint to go bad.
> Looks like completely new tooling.
> It's hard to see in the pic but they are pretty long.
> Looks like a high quality turnout.
> 
> View attachment 559302
> 
> 
> Magic


 Magic & Stejones82;

Thanks for the photos of the new Walthers turnouts. They look very well designed and have an isolated metal frog. Their appearance is also excellent. Looks like a good choice for turnouts.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Magic

Stejones82 
If you're thinking about using the old Walthers curved turnouts be
very careful when laying them.
They must be almost dead flat in all directions or you'll have derail problems.
Don't ask me how I know. 

Magic


----------



## Stejones82

I am thinking of using them. I have two left-hand and one right-hand that make my plans possible. I will keep that in mind and I thank you for the heads-up! No "Super elevation," huh.


----------



## Stejones82

Well - I hit the wall yesterday, just about literally. 

Fortunately, before I started cutting, I realized that the problems I was having laying out the turntable, would also be present for cutting the hole. In other words, total interference with the wall for the jigsaw. I *COULD* do it, but it would not be easy and take a lot of work. SO back to Anyrail. Here is my new plan. It moves the TT out from the wall which should give nice access: 











I eliminated one TO and leg to the TT, which was mostly redundant anyway. I added a trak due west from the TT which will be switchable to the "program" mode of DCC. Had to move the RH over as well. Have no ideas for the space behind the RH ... ... a yard office/bunk room maybe? 

Pink boxes are electromagnet uncouplers, purple are standard magnets. The EM one in the NE, should that get east (as shown) or west of the TO? That crossover is to allow road locos to escape after uncoupling their drags. 

Control boxes added, but locations far from final. 

As always, comments/critique gladly accepted. 

-----Steve


----------



## traction fan

Stejones82 said:


> Well - I hit the wall yesterday, just about literally.
> 
> Fortunately, before I started cutting, I realized that the problems I was having laying out the turntable, would also be present for cutting the hole. In other words, total interference with the wall for the jigsaw. I *COULD* do it, but it would not be easy and take a lot of work. SO back to Anyrail. Here is my new plan. It moves the TT out from the wall which should give nice access:
> 
> View attachment 559411
> 
> 
> 
> I eliminated one TO and leg to the TT, which was mostly redundant anyway. I added a trak due west from the TT which will be switchable to the "program" mode of DCC. Had to move the RH over as well. Have no ideas for the space behind the RH ... ... a yard office/bunk room maybe?
> 
> Pink boxes are electromagnet uncouplers, purple are standard magnets. The EM one in the NE, should that get east (as shown) or west of the TO? That crossover is to allow road locos to escape after uncoupling their drags.
> 
> Control boxes added, but locations far from final.
> 
> As always, comments/critique gladly accepted.
> 
> -----Steve


Steve;

On the east electromagnetic uncoupler, put it east of the turnout. That way it serves both routes through the turnout instead of just one. The track east of that turnout and uncoupler looks short, but if it only has to hold a switcher, that should work.

You don't really need all those permanent magnet uncouplers (one for every track) a single electromagnetic uncoupler located at the very west end of your new drawing, could, theoretically, serve every track in the whole yard. This assumes you are going to use Kadee's "delayed uncoupling" technique. Once uncoupled, a car can be pushed into whatever track it needs to end up in, without re-coupling. At least that's the theory. If the loco should stall, even for a second, anywhere in its long pushing maneuver through turnouts, and along track, the coupler offset will go away, and the loco will then recouple to the car(s) when it bumps back into them.
This, along with the cost, unwanted uncouplings, and somewhat dorky appearance, of multiple uncouplers, is one reason behind the popularity of stick uncoupling. A hand-held small stick or screwdriver, is inserted between coupler and gently twisted to uncouple any car any where you want.

I know I questioned the need for your original three approach tracks to the turntable, but I liked having two of them. A locomotive using any of the facilities, water, fuel, sand, etc. will block the only access to the turntable and roundhouse. Nothing could get in, or out, of the roundhouse while a locomotive was being serviced. I liked your earlier, two approach tracks, setup much better.

Your roundhouse is shown with only one stall track. I assume that's just a drawing thing. There would be no point in having a roundhouse with only one track. That would call for a single-track, rectangular, engine house instead.

Space behind the roundhouse? Few modelers would have trouble filling a space. Our problem is always having too little space, not too much! 😄
Your idea of a railroad office building, or any non tracked structure would work. This space would be where the "back shop" would be located in some yards. However, a back shop typically has multiple tracks, and a "transfer table", which is sort of a linier version of a turntable. The bridge of a transfer table moves sideways rather than rotating. But all that requires more track, more scratchbuilding, more work, and more possibility of your sabre say colliding with a wall, than its worth.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Stejones82

Thanks for the feedback TF. I really appreciate your comments. 

1. The track east of the TO on northern ladder track is 13-1/2 inches. It is enough for my steam loco and tender. 

2. I will consider eliminating some of the standard magnets. But like you said, any burp and in comes the HOG. 

3. I guess I do have space for an second TT entrance track. 










What do you think of that? Might could make it a tad longer by shortening the 18" radius immediately in front of that TO. 

4. Kept the programing track, but it could go away. 

5. Yes, there are three tracks, not shown, for the 3 stall RH. 

6. Again, thanks for the critique! Keep 'em coming! Ad other guys can chime in as well. ----Steve


----------



## Magic

They do make an under the track magnetic uncoupler, I think it's by Kadee.
They work very good and you can't see them once you ballast track.
You'll need some kind of a marker to show where they are.
For me the HOG method really doesn't work unless you can look straight 
down on the couplers, might be a problem in that back corner.

It's a nice layout but that yard in that corner just bothers me.
You might get away with it however.
Of course you could always cut a big hole in that wall.  
Make it a window.  She'll never notice. 

Magic


----------



## traction fan

Stejones82 said:


> Thanks for the feedback TF. I really appreciate your comments.
> 
> 1. The track east of the TO on northern ladder track is 13-1/2 inches. It is enough for my steam loco and tender.
> 
> 2. I will consider eliminating some of the standard magnets. But like you said, any burp and in comes the HOG.
> 
> 3. I guess I do have space for an second TT entrance track.
> 
> View attachment 559428
> 
> 
> What do you think of that? Might could make it a tad longer by shortening the 18" radius immediately in front of that TO.
> 
> 4. Kept the programing track, but it could go away.
> 
> 5. Yes, there are three tracks, not shown, for the 3 stall RH.
> 
> 6. Again, thanks for the critique! Keep 'em coming! Ad other guys can chime in as well. ----Steve


Steve;

I would consider moving your section joint if possible. One highly recommended practice for sectional layouts is to have as few tracks crossing the joint as possible. Corollaries to this rule are to have straight tracks only and those crossing as close to 90 degrees to the joint line as possible. Avoid curved tracks crossing a joint, and never locate a turnout over a joint.

Moving your section joint down (south) until it is more or less in line with the wall that runs east and west, will avoid the curves, but I don't know if that will put it under some of your turnouts in that area. Doing that would make things worse not better.

Moving it up (north) and angling it parallel to your yard ladder, will cut the number of crossing tracks down to one, and avoid all turnouts, which would be a better option.

Builders of sectional layouts, especially portable, modular ones, have been debating how to lay track across the joints between sections for years. There are two main methods.

One is to lay glued & ballasted track right over the joint and then cut the track(s) directly over the joint. Rail joiners are then fitted to the cut tra,ck(s). 
The advantage of this method is that the track at the joint looks like the rest of the track. The big disadvantage though, is that the rail ends, and rail joiners, being right at the very ends of the modules, are very likely to be damaged during the cycle of set up, tear down, & transporting, operations that portable layouts go through.

The other common method uses some form of removeable track section(s) over the joints. These are often simply pieces of sectional straight track. The advantage is that the ends of the main line are now set back some distance from the section joint, and therefore protected from damage. I use a modified form of this method on my layout, since I periodically need to remove a section from my layout, and take it to my workbench, where I can work on it sitting down. (I'm partially disabled)
The disadvantage is a pretty hooky appearance. Now the ballasted track ends at whatever setback is used, and unballasted track takes over at each joint line. The removable sections really detract from the looks of modular layouts.
This will not be a concern for users of roadbed track, like Kato's Unitrack, since even the removable section will have the same plastic "ballast" as all the rest of the track.

For a home layout like yours, which I'm assuming will seldom be disassembled, the first option is likely best. Simply lay track across the joint, and cut it when/if you have to move. 

regards;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## traction fan

Magic said:


> They do make an under the track magnetic uncoupler, I think it's by Kadee.
> They work very good and you can't see them once you ballast track.
> You'll need some kind of a marker to show where they are.
> For me the HOG method really doesn't work unless you can look straight
> down on the couplers, might be a problem in that back corner.
> 
> It's a nice layout but that yard in that corner just bothers me.
> You might get away with it however.
> Of course you could always cut a big hole in that wall.
> Make it a window.  She'll never notice.
> 
> Magic


Magic;

Yes, that invisible, under-the-track magnet is made by Kadee, in HO-scale, (and Micro-Trains makes it in N-scale.)
This magnet also has the option of being hinged, which allows it to be "turned on and off." The magnet in the raised position is right below the track, & parallel to it, and will uncouple. When moved to the down position, It is no longer in a position to uncouple, and so is "turned off." Directions for doing this are on the sheet packaged with the magnet.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Stejones82

Getting close to my Final Answer, as the saying goes. Comments/critique still invited:


----------



## J.Albert1949

Re the plan in post 41 above...

Do you _really need _"the second reverse loop"?
(the one with the diamond)


----------



## Stejones82

Cur the hole for the turntable.


----------



## Magic

A very good point about the reverse loop.
If you have one reverse loop you really need two so 
you can reverse back to the original direction.

You have two loops but they go the same way, no way to reverse 
back to the original direction.
Going counter clockwise you can reverse to clockwise on either loop
but can't reverse to CCW again.

Going CW you can't reverse at all.

Magic


----------



## Stejones82

Magic said:


> A very good point about the reverse loop.
> If you have one reverse loop you really need two so
> you can reverse back to the original direction.
> 
> You have two loops but they go the same way, no way to reverse
> back to the original direction.
> Going counter clockwise you can reverse to clockwise on either loop
> but can't reverse to CCW again.
> 
> Going CW you can't reverse at all.
> 
> Magic


Very good points, thanks Magic. I will play some more in Anyrail, but my fear is that adding another will give too much of a figure 8 for my taste. Right now, the concept is to use the main reverse loop to 'return' to the yard head first. The reverse there would be the turntable for the outbound head first trip. 

I do not need that second reverse loop, and may well drop it as that gives 4 curves on that northern loop. But I do want some way for the switcher to get south of the main reverse loop to work industries there. 

I'm still thinking and have begun work on the yard. So the yard design is pretty much fixed in my mind. Thanks to all! -----Steve


----------



## J.Albert1949

You really only need ONE reverse loop for a layout that originates a train in the yard, then runs it on the mainline, runs through the loop, and returns to the yard. The second reverse loop just "gets in the way"...


----------



## Stejones82

Took out one reversing loop. I want the one with the diamond just for operating interest. Won't be a lot of traffic serving those southern spurs, but some could cause interference. 

The wye turnout is there because I already have it on hand! 

This rendition leaves one LH Walthers/Shin #6-1/2 curved TO unused. Where could it go? 










As always, comments/critique welcome!


----------



## CTValleyRR

Nowhere. Never install track just to use up pieces or fill space. Notice how much cleaner and less cluttered your layout looks now?


----------



## kilowatt62

Greetings, 
Lower right corner (south-east). Is that a 12 degree diamond or, a single/double slip turnout?


----------



## Stejones82

kilowatt62 said:


> Greetings,
> Lower right corner (south-east). Is that a 12 degree diamond or, a single/double slip turnout?


Ah yes, that is a Peco double slip turnout.


----------



## kilowatt62

Extra dual radius turnout.
Think about this. 
Where your present reverse loop returns via the standard left hand turnout, swap that with your extra dual radius one and place it further up the line where the curves start in that north west area.
That will force you to bring that side of the loop closer, and more parallel like to the spurs you have there. Can still use the diamond that you like too. The parallel part, to me, looks better anyway. (Your mileage may vary-lol) 
Other bonus is, now you have more room in the center for whatever scenery you may be planning. So you now end up with a spare standard turnout, big whoop right? Dual radius are cooler anyway.


----------



## Stejones82

As Scooby-Doo says, "Ruh Roh."

I was wondering why the alignment of the Tracks and turntable were so far off - - - - 5 - 6 inches! I even made a silly post suggesting that Anyrail was the problem. Nope, it was 100% operator error. 

I drew the inside aisleway six inches long. In other words, the corner of the wall by the TT is six inches further west than drawn. Hence, when I had to 'move' the TT and RH (I discovered that cutting the hole for the TT would be extremely difficult that close to the wall) I in actuality had to move it 6 inches further west than I thought per the drawing. So here is what I originally drew via Anyrail: 









Here is the corrected: 









Only by the grace of God, it all still fits okay. But whew, what a dummy, eh?! 

I discovered this because the frog feeder wire hole I drilled for that southernmost 5b turnout, went into a crossmember. This happens, right. But in fixing it, I noticed that that particular crossmember was the Table edge of the bench going into the alcove ... ... ... exactly as Anyrail showed it to be!! So that got me thinking and measuring, and so I discovered such a huge error! 

Live and learn, they say, and I am learning loads with this new hobby of mine. But still having fun, as it engages my brain in troubleshooting modes that I actually enjoy and keep me fresh. 

Steve J


----------



## CTValleyRR

Stejones82 said:


> As Scooby-Doo says, "Ruh Roh."
> 
> I was wondering why the alignment of the Tracks and turntable were so far off - - - - 5 - 6 inches! I even made a silly post suggesting that Anyrail was the problem. Nope, it was 100% operator error.
> 
> I drew the inside aisleway six inches long. In other words, the corner of the wall by the TT is six inches further west than drawn. Hence, when I had to 'move' the TT and RH (I discovered that cutting the hole for the TT would be extremely difficult that close to the wall) I in actuality had to move it 6 inches further west than I thought per the drawing. So here is what I originally drew via Anyrail:
> View attachment 565165
> 
> 
> Here is the corrected:
> View attachment 565166
> 
> 
> Only by the grace of God, it all still fits okay. But whew, what a dummy, eh?!
> 
> I discovered this because the frog feeder wire hole I drilled for that southernmost 5b turnout, went into a crossmember. This happens, right. But in fixing it, I noticed that that particular crossmember was the Table edge of the bench going into the alcove ... ... ... exactly as Anyrail showed it to be!! So that got me thinking and measuring, and so I discovered such a huge error!
> 
> Live and learn, they say, and I am learning loads with this new hobby of mine. But still having fun, as it engages my brain in troubleshooting modes that I actually enjoy and keep me fresh.
> 
> Steve J


You're not dumb. You made a mistake. And you caught it. That's how we feeble humans learn. I've made worse mistakes than that in Anyrail -- once ever multiplying by 18 to convert feet to inches!

A good piece of advice, though, in more places than this is, "Don't blame the tool (or instrument, or club, or whatever)."


----------



## Stejones82

Great feedback as always, CTVRR. 

Update: Haven't done much 'new' work. I have enjoyed time to run the trains over the yard and TT and RH. Finding spots that require re-work or finessing, as expected. Going to do some electrical work Friday and Saturday. Wire up the 16 VDC power to the Electromagnet uncouplers, put in the ECBs, add a Buck Board for 12 VDC, etc. 

Hardest part will be the electromagnet uncouplers. I neglected to pre-solder wires from the coil stubs - - - - so noq must do that under the table. Not looking forward to learning how to do that so any advice/suggestions appreciated. 

I'm thinking using a little gas Flamestick (like for lighting candles or BBQs) as I do not have any BIC lighters to 'burn' off 1/2" inch or so of the coil insulation before soldering on 20 ga feeder to connect to the 16 VDC power supply. I bought electronic timer boards (as per Larry Puckett, the DCC Guy), which have an adjustable 'on' time. He recommends 20 seconds, which seems a good place to start. 

I must admit, I'm having fun making/breaking up trains in the yard. The 4 axle diesels work great. The little 0-6-0s balk at the non-powered frogs, the 4-6-2 Pacific was a nightmare. 

Steve J


----------



## Lemonhawk

Not sure how wise it is to have a flame under your layout. Just use lots of electrical flux (not plumbing acid flux) and a pencil soldering iron. flux both coil wire and the wire going to the coil, tin both then connect and solder. Don't use a lot of solder!!! If your new to soldering, watch some YouTube How to solder videos, practice a lot and see how much difference a little flux makes, then you will be prepared for going under the table. Make sure your not in the way of any dropping hot solder. If you ware glasses, keep them on, if not you might use some safety specks, I know they're annoying, but soldering up hill is not a pleasant task and its a task that likely will drop some hot solder around. Don't touch the tip! We have probably all done that, and try not to get hot solder under your fingernail (Don't ask)!


----------



## Stejones82

Lemonhawk said:


> Not sure how wise it is to have a flame under your layout. Just use lots of electrical flux (not plumbing acid flux) and a pencil soldering iron. flux both coil wire and the wire going to the coil, tin both then connect and solder. Don't use a lot of solder!!! If your new to soldering, watch some YouTube How to solder videos, practice a lot and see how much difference a little flux makes, then you will be prepared for going under the table. Make sure your not in the way of any dropping hot solder. If you ware glasses, keep them on, if not you might use some safety specks, I know they're annoying, but soldering up hill is not a pleasant task and its a task that likely will drop some hot solder around. Don't touch the tip! We have probably all done that, and try not to get hot solder under your fingernail (Don't ask)!


Just to clarify: the resin flux and heat will 'eliminate' the insulating coating on the wire? 

And thanks for the safety tips - - - I am not so proud to sneer at such tips as if I was wet 'hind the ears. I'm proud to ADMIT I'm wet 'hind the ears - - - but I learn fast, and am still upright and taking nourishment. That despite all my um, shall we say, learning experiences!


----------



## Lemonhawk

If its enamel coating you may have to scrape it with a knife edge. Still I'm not much in favor of open flame under something that might catch fire, just not worth the risk.


----------



## traction fan

Stejones82 said:


> Just to clarify: the resin flux and heat will 'eliminate' the insulating coating on the wire?
> 
> And thanks for the safety tips - - - I am not so proud to sneer at such tips as if I was wet 'hind the ears. I'm proud to ADMIT I'm wet 'hind the ears - - - but I learn fast, and am still upright and taking nourishment. That despite all my um, shall we say, learning experiences!


stejones82;

Way back in ancient times, when I was but a lad, (and a butt of a lad too 😕) I was soldering connections under the table of one of my previous layouts.
This was an early, HO-scale, Atlas-tracked, affair, with the track held down by nails. My soldering iron was on top of the layout. I reached up for the soldering iron, grabbing it firmly by the wrong end,  screamed, and drooled molten solder down the inside skin of my arm. I then cleverly tried to stand up, thereby smashing my head into a bunch of projecting nail points! This was the day a boy became a man. I broadened my child-like vocabulary with several adult, four-lettered terms! So, it you think you're the only model railroader who's done something stupid, well, you ain't. 

Traction Fan


----------



## Stejones82

Greetings all, 

A quick update: 

Finished the soldering/wiring for the electromagnet uncouplers. I must admit that it it is a slick feature to have those timer relays. I eventually decided to take the risk and use a lighter to burn off the insulation. Worked great and happy to report there were no unintended fire issues! Much easier than trying to scrape under the table. 

Last night (10-25-2012) I installed and wired the PSX circuit breaker for the yard power district. Works great. Deliberately short the track and the track power goes dead (loco lights go off) but the DCS52 Zephyr track status light stays on. Exactly as it should. Now to decide if I want LED status lights from the PSX board to a control/status panel. I don't really need them as the power district power is either there or its not.. No power tells me there is a short without the status LEds. But there is of course, the 'cool' factor. 

I also checked something else. I intend to have a program track curve off the TT and behind the intended coaling station. The coaling station has a dump grate and I wanted to make sure I could place things such that the program track could simulate a coal fill track for the coaling tower. I did buy the Walthers Small Coaling Station 933-4202, and checked the fit with the base plate and it should work just fine. 

Now to build the coaling station and fit the track. The program/coal-fill track will be fitted via a DPDT-center-off toggle switch to switch between program and regular track power and can be 'killed' as necessary. Someday, I may have so many locomotives that I can use it as a parking track. 

Other than that, I am still looking at the track plan for the main table. Yes, envious of those with space for a 'round the room' shelf layouts, but just does not fit what I have available. 

Not sure where to go next - - - keep improving the yard district or start laying track on the main table. As much fun as I am having with making/breaking up trains in the yard, it would be nice if they could actually go somewhere. 

Still here and still making progress and still having fun! 

Steve J


----------



## Stejones82

Greetings to all! Again, I solicit your opinions! 

I am ready, now that golf season has come to a freezing halt, to begin work upon the main table. I did some work and have two options. One incorporates a curved TO on the reverse track which saves some space and helps the run. Then I also made a revision to include some passing tracks - one on the inner eastern loop and then using crossover TOs an option for the western loop. I am pretty much against the eastern one, as I don't see much additional op benefit for the $130 or so of equipment, but the western one? Does that look nice and adding good operational interest? 

I am torn - I like the free run of the west without the crossovers. But I can see that those crossovers will add interest. Your thoughts? 








or: 









I would very much appreciate your replies and comments. Thanks! 

Steve J


----------



## DonR

My only concern: is the tail of the turnout next to the
green and black building long enough to accomodate
the loco and 2 or 3 cars? The loco would PUSH cars
to the two stub tracks. You might consider a nearby
passing siding so loco can get on 'the other side' of 
a car.

Don


----------



## traction fan

Stejones82 said:


> Greetings to all! Again, I solicit your opinions!
> 
> I am ready, now that golf season has come to a freezing halt, to begin work upon the main table. I did some work and have two options. One incorporates a curved TO on the reverse track which saves some space and helps the run. Then I also made a revision to include some passing tracks - one on the inner eastern loop and then using crossover TOs an option for the western loop. I am pretty much against the eastern one, as I don't see much additional op benefit for the $130 or so of equipment, but the western one? Does that look nice and adding good operational interest?
> 
> I am torn - I like the free run of the west without the crossovers. But I can see that those crossovers will add interest. Your thoughts?
> View attachment 571260
> 
> or:
> View attachment 571261
> 
> 
> I would very much appreciate your replies and comments. Thanks!
> 
> Steve J


Steve;

First, I agree with DonR about that short track coming out of the top turnout, and the lack of a runaround track up there. I think if you buy two more turnouts, they should be used for that runaround, rather than the somewhat pointless arrangement in the lower plan. That's one reason that I prefer the top track plan. The one without the extra turnouts & center track. I don't see any point to the extra track components, down there.
Your layout is already pretty full of track, to the point where scenery, and structures, may be restricted.
In my opinion a "Model Railroad" should look as close to a miniature of a real railroad, as is practical in the available space. That's what makes it a "Model Railroad", instead of a "Train Setup."
It is (at least theoretically) a model of a real railroad, rather than just a bunch of track with trains buzzing around on it. 
Notice I said "look" not necessarily "be."
It is impossible for most of us, in the limited spaces we have, to build an exact scale model of the entire trackage of even the shortest of short lines. Instead we can try to build something that gives the illusion  of a real railroad. This can be based on a prototype, or not, as long as it looks like something a real railroad would build.

For example, my own model railroad is vey loosely based on the Milwaukee Road's passenger operations in Seattle, Washington, in the 1920s.
Is it an N-scale duplicate of all the track the Milwaukee had in that area, at that time? Heck no ! I don't have the room, or the money, to build that. However, its fairly close, at least in the immediate area of Seattle Union Station. The further away from that station you go, the more compromised things get, in terms of realism. 

However, does it give the impression of being set in Seattle in the 1920s? Well, I hope so. I've invested a lot of time, effort, & money, to make that impression in the minds of people seeing the railroad. Making a model railroad look realistic includes modeling the proportion of railroad real estate to the "rest of the world" as much as our always-too-small space & budget allow. I can have reasonably accurate models of a few signature Seattle structures to establish the locale, but only a few, and only on two very shortened "blocks" of two Seattle streets (4th Ave, S. & Jackson St. see photos)

The real world, aside from actual railyards, has perhaps 1% of its land covered by railroad track. Most model railroads are up in the 80% - 90% range. Its tough to look realistic with all that track everywhere. Concealing some of it, or dividing the main (vertical in the drawing) part of your layout, into two separate scenes, with a backdrop between them, would help a lot.

All that said, Its your railroad, so do what you like best.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Thelic

The tracks circled in red are nigh impossible to service. Especially if you have any cars spotted by the green building. Can you make it come off the reverse loop instead? Either directly (preferred) or as in green shown below (if you must have a diamond), and remove the orange track.










If you did it directly it would open up a nice alley between the diagonals that you could stuff some scenery in to visually separate the lines. Some buildings, a little hill?


----------



## kilowatt62

~Thelic has a highly valuable point here. To add to what he is thinking; that 45deg Diamond could be swapped for a 12deg dbl slip turnout and some trackage reworking as well to accommodate it. That way, Thelic’s observation and, add one or two more travel options. As well as trackage ending up closer together if you do it right. Therefore allowing a smidge more scenery space...

~I’m glad you swapped out to a dual radius Lft turnout up in the north-west area of the turnaround track. A suggestion I made a few months back. Very Cool...

~On the subject of the new extra crossover setups. Hmm. Redundant my brother. You already have plenty, as CTvalley has mentioned. However, the east side one could be usefully lengthened by a dual radius rgt hand turnout at the northern end of it. Making it a bit more useful to the building you have there. I get that you already see it as kind of useless but, Look again with the turnout revision I’m proposing.
The newly added west side crossovers, I think are actually the more redundant ones here...

~That’s all Ive got at the moment-lol. Apologies if post seems longish. 

Scott.


----------



## Thelic

Don originally pointed it out! 

I just proposed a few solutions. Don's solution would work, but it looks to be about 14" from the clearance point of the turnout to the end of the spur, not a lot of room to get an HO engine in with any kind of car that needs to be spotted. If those two spurs were engine service it would be ok, but they look to be industry tracks.

Even if the spur were long enough you would have to nose in by the green building on your first go around the track, drop the entire train minus maybe one car (if it fits), then back it into those spurs, again, one car at a time. Then escape back to the mainline, go around the reverse loop, then service the remaining (now trailing) spurs.

If you like this puzzle, then you can keep it as is, but slide the turnout further south on the industry track to the green building to increase the room on the lead.


----------



## Stejones82

Jiminy Crickets, you are right! Thanks for the time invested and suggestions. 

My operational concept was to have one switcher work the all the industries inside the loops. But I don't have enough space by the western green building. The leg off the turnout is 15 inches as drawn. Even a short switcher could only move one ** maybe ** two cars. I do have a BLI Plymouth switcher that is only about four inches long. 

Hmmm - - - come off the reverse leg - - - double slip - - - 

Thanks - good stuff to consider. I'll be back!


----------



## Stejones82

Thanks again, your suggestions and catches have been quite ehlpful. 

Here is a new design for the interior spurs: 










The curve and the straight off the northwestern inside TO is a total of 23 inches, so that should allow some decent movement, I'm thinking.


----------



## Thelic

The two crossovers on the left side, can (should?) you reverse the top one? Either that or remove one all together, they seem redundant as is.

The interior looks much better!


----------



## kilowatt62

Looking better and better.
*I can still see a couple places to swap out to dual radius turnouts (DRTs) (3 needed) to further lengthen that newer 23” stub and, lengthen the passing siding on the east side. 
I agree with Thelic about the redundancy the crossover at the upper west side.*


----------



## Thelic

I substituted as many DRT's into my layout as possible, it really lengthened the sidings, usually it nets an additional car. The larger radius also serves as an easement, makes for very nice sweeping trackwork. About the best you can do without hand laying.


----------



## Stejones82

kilowatt62 said:


> Looking better and better.
> *I can still see a couple places to swap out to dual radius turnouts (DRTs) (3 needed) to further lengthen that newer 23” stub and, lengthen the passing siding on the east side.
> I agree with Thelic about the redundancy the crossover at the upper west side.*


And I see that the new Walthers ones are in stock!!


----------



## CTValleyRR

kilowatt62 said:


> Looking better and better.
> *I can still see a couple places to swap out to dual radius turnouts (DRTs) (3 needed) to further lengthen that newer 23” stub and, lengthen the passing siding on the east side.
> I agree with Thelic about the redundancy the crossover at the upper west side.*


We don't call them "curved turnouts" anymore?


----------



## Thelic

Ah your right, I've committed heresy! John Armstrong refers to them as "Curved Turnouts".


----------



## kilowatt62

“We don’t call them curved turnouts anymore?”

Ive always called them curved turnouts. Somehow though, there has been a trend towards “dual radius turnouts” terminology, to the point even of me being corrected for calling them the former. I abbreviated the term to DRT in my posts because I dont care to type all that out.

All that said; I will return to curved turnouts here, correct or incorrect.

Hope that Doth pleases his Highness. 😅😅


----------



## CTValleyRR

Actually, that was an honest question, not a criticism. I haven't seen any tendency to use that terminology in the hobby press or anywhere else (like manufacturer's packaging). To me, calling calling curved turnout a "dual radius turnout" is kind of like calling a car a self powered mode of personal transportation. It's not WRONG, but it's unnecessarily cumbersome and it doesn't add any clarity to the description (if it didn't have two radii, it wouldn't be a turnout, just a curve).


----------



## Stejones82

Tweaking with the ideas of curved TOs. Model Train Stuff has a pretty good supply, and not crazy expensive. 

1. Moved the double-slip on the eastern side further south, extending that passing siding. 

2. Used curved TOs inside the loop to (hopefully) enhance the geometry for the industrial switching 

3. Took out the NW crossover. 

4. Toyed with the idea of a double crossover in place of the NE single crossover - - - but did not think it added much to the ops. 

5. Moved the Wye from the SE to the SW spur. 











I hope to get started with the building of this main loop in January after the holidays. But my oldest daughter is circling in on Jan 21 for her wedding date - - so those preps will override!


----------



## traction fan

Stejones82 said:


> I hope to get started with the building of this main loop in January after the holidays. But my oldest daughter is circling in on Jan 21 for her wedding date - - so those preps will override!



Yes, if you think Godzilla trashed Tokyo, you don't want to see what Bridezilla can do to a model railroad! Wait till after the wedding. Then assuming you, $$$$ the father of the bride $$$$$ have any money left, 😄 😄 😄 😄 you can play trains again.

Traction Fan 😊


----------



## Thelic

Looking better with each iteration!

Here's my suggestion.


Remove the cross, service the south west spurs from inner loop as shown, this lets you use the reverse loop as a run around.
Since we no longer need to tie up track space on the north switching branch we can swap some turnouts around to get a decent size run around by moving the east most spur to the second switch in series rather than the first.
This should let you run a train in a continuous loop while running a second train in a switching operation on the inner and reverse loops.
Railroads didn't go out of their way to create switching problems, rather quite the opposite. This should provide a decent complexity of switching without causing frustration.


----------



## kilowatt62

There ya go. I like the new design much better. Yes, I agree that a dbl x-over in NE corner not really needed. However, if you swap those two #6 TOs for a pair of curved TOs, siding gets even longer and sleaker. I like the extra spur you added there as well. Or was it already there?
Did I mention that I’m a big fan of curved TOs? 😀

Edit: (Just saw Thelics suggestions. I like his East side ideas a lot.)


----------



## Stejones82

kilowatt62 said:


> However, if you swap those two #6 TOs for a pair of curved TOs, siding gets even longer and sleaker.
> 
> Edit: (Just saw Thelics suggestions. I like his East side ideas a lot.)


I did try to replace the NE TOs with curved, but could not make it work AND keep the 22 inch radius of the outside curve, which I really want. I'll fiddle with again, maybe., Thanks for your help!!


----------



## Thelic

Unless you are running trains that long it may be a non issue.

Try to find your limiting section then decide if that is long enough or not.


----------



## MichaelE

Right where the new track in green ends on the lower right, is that a slip or a crossing?


----------



## Thelic

I think he stated that was a slip earlier.

If you zoom in its a double slip.


----------



## Stejones82

Greetings all. Thanks for all the help. Christmas is now over and I can return to this project. 

1. Yes, a double slip

2. Outside main curves are 22 inch radius, inside are 18 inch min. I really want to keep those 22 inch outside radii, and do not want to go below 18 inch anywhere except for inside switching industries. I have two 0-6-0 locos: one a Plymouth diesel (BLI) and a Porter steam (Bachmann) that I 'see' switching inside the main. But I had better test, maybe 0-6-0 will bind on a 15 inch radius even at low switching speeds. 

3. I have hardboard for a fascia that will provide a 1 inch 'guardrail.' Hopefully that will prevent the great plunge of death!! Though my layout does sit over carpet and a pad, but still. 

4. I'm going to keep playing with the inside industrial area. I have a mind's eye idea that may not work, but it's worth throwing some Anyrail pixels around. 

Thanks again for the tips and reviews and critiques. Keep 'em coming! 

STeve J


----------



## kilowatt62

Your 0-6-0s, as well as any 40’ or less rolling stock will run fine on 15r curves in yard areas. Of course that doesn’t mean you should-lol. 
Curved TOs & 22r; needn't worry about that. If you can make them fit well, the larger than 22r outer curve will act as an easement into and out of the other 22r curves. Smoother op’s too. 
It’s obvious I’m a huge fan of curved TOs. For good reason I believe.


----------



## Stejones82

Okay - I have done a lot of design work inside the loops. 













The curves showing yellow are 18 inch R; Those showing Orange are 15 inch R.
The southern structure is the Walthers Ice Bunker, upper west is the Golden Valley Canning company.
The structure off board is the Walthers RJ Frost frozen storage - - doesn't look like it will fit anywhere.
that is a double slip coming off the southeastern inside loop. (Probably don't really need it, but I already have the TO).
The little spur pointing SW may become a little engine house for the industrial switcher working those inner lines.
the pink rectangles are electromagnet uncouplers.
The Yard is already built and uses the ME code 70 ladder system.
All other TOs will be Peco insul/unifrog or the new Walthers.
The curved TOs are a mix of old Walthers/Shinohara and the new Walthers.
Rolling stock will be primarily 40 foot or less. I have one 50 footer box car.
No passenger service.

Please review with an eye for operations. I think I have it such that all the inside tracks can be worked with a switcher and at least a few cars. 

Thanks all!! I'm getting excited to get cracking on this!!


----------



## BigGRacing

Disregard


----------



## Thelic

Personally, I think you have too much going on. Lots of back and forth spurs look interesting on paper but will be a nightmare to use. Combine that with a lack of a runaround track off the mainline and it's going to get old fast.

In the prototype remember they try to make things as easy to access (time is money) and use as little infrastructure as possible (maintenance/construction costs).


If you REALLY want that much track and puzzle in the middle I'd suggest adding a well known track arrangement to the middle such as the timesaver. It's not really for "operations" its more a puzzle, but it should work better for operations than your most recent plan and still be plenty interesting. Note that it includes a runaround.


----------



## Stejones82

You are of course correct - a run-around would be of tremendous use. And funny you should mention the Tymesave. Early in my thought process, I was looking hard at the "Highland Terminal" shunting track 









The Highland Terminal - Carendt.com


New York Central Railroad: Highland Terminal HO Trackplan 6×1 ft (180×30 cm) [This layout was originally published at Rich Weyand’s Tractronics website in 1994. An expanded article about the plan was published in Model Railroad Planning 2005. This article is a reprint (with updated graphics) of...




www.carendt.com





I'll keep working! Thanks again!


----------



## afboundguy

Thelic said:


> Personally, I think you have too much going on. Lots of back and forth spurs look interesting on paper but will be a nightmare to use. Combine that with a lack of a runaround track off the mainline and it's going to get old fast.
> 
> In the prototype remember they try to make things as easy to access (time is money) and use as little infrastructure as possible (maintenance/construction costs).
> 
> 
> If you REALLY want that much track and puzzle in the middle I'd suggest adding a well known track arrangement to the middle such as the timesaver. It's not really for "operations" its more a puzzle, but it should work better for operations than your most recent plan and still be plenty interesting. Note that it includes a runaround.
> 
> View attachment 575036


Is this design more for off of a mainline? I'm dabbling in how to do some small yards off my mainline and was curious...


----------



## Thelic

Its a shunting puzzle, so its designed to look like it connects to a mainline or potentially one of the through tracks is the mainline.

This Digitrax demonstrator layout has one inside the bottom loop.
Norcross Southern (digitrax.com)


----------



## Stejones82

Whew - - tougher than I thought. But I do appreciate the feedback and criticism. I'm thinking I may be closer. 









1. Solid pink lines are view-blocks. The N_S one will be 18 inches with tapering toward the edge. The Northern one separating the main from the yard will be about 10-12 inches. Maybe shorter. My plan is to make the view blocks of 1/16 styrene sheets and probably afix commercial backdrops to them; one of a rural setting; one of an urban. 

2. The spur coming off the western loop is a grain elevator and will be the only structure in that section. The inside loop area will be various industries. Those shown are not final decisions. 

Hopefully the inside industrial area is cleaner now. I've been learning quite a bit, but I am quite sure that it could (and should) be better. 

I have started laying the track for the two outside loops as I do not see those changing much. So I still have time to play with the inner ideas. 

Thanks all!


----------



## Stejones82

Greetings all! 

Once again, thanks for all of the constructive comments and suggestions. I have learned much from you as a result! I awoke on e night not long ago and thought "Aha! A Wye!!" 

So that launched me an yet another tweak of the interior! ANyrail is great for a thinker/analyzer like me!! 









That is a Walthers/Shinohara #2 Wye coming off the TO coming off the Double slip. My LHS has one in stock!! So I am liking this and think this will be my final iteration. 

As always, comments welcome!


----------



## kilowatt62

I see it. I like it. Helps with the natural curve needed for the left divergent route. Good move slick boy.


----------



## Thelic

After finally getting enough of my tracks up and running I have learned a few lessons the hard way. I've found that S-bends are to be avoided wherever possible. I had a section on my layout that a corner had been laid just 1/4" off where it should have been and it caused a derailment every time between my engine and first car when the coupler swing maxed out.

You have a good deal of curves entering into a turnout that turns the opposite direction. Depending on your equipment it may or may not be a problem. It may be best to mock some of these up to test if you experience enough sway to have coupler swing max out.

Consider the bottom wye. A standard switch is a much safer option here it compresses the tracks a bit but completely removes a very short S-bend.










Additionally if you swap the direction of the switch just north of the new wye and remove the short curve between the wye and it you will find the S bend is removed. Basically by doing it as you've done you are oversteering the corner only to turn back the other direction. Consider my arrangement on the left, and yours on the right. Yours has an S-bend with no straight track between, mine has at least the length of the switch straight before turning back the other direction. Now they don't end up in *EXACTLY* the same place but it's pretty close. Close enough to at least give it a check to see if you can make it fit.












I know you are working to keep the straight leg of the turnout as the main route, but it's more important to keep the S-bends out. The whole main/straight argument is fairly moot with industry trackage anyhow. There are a few other locations where you've done the same thing. The turntable entrance looks odd, it has a whole bunch of zig zags on the southern entrance. Again mine on the left, your on the right.















Do what you will with these, your design may work just fine with short equipment. It might just be a a little more bullet proof with mine.


----------



## Stejones82

Thelic said:


> After finally getting enough of my tracks up and running I have learned a few lessons the hard way. I've found that S-bends are to be avoided wherever possible. I had a section on my layout that a corner had been laid just 1/4" off where it should have been and it caused a derailment every time between my engine and first car when the coupler swing maxed out.
> 
> Do what you will with these, your design may work just fine with short equipment. It might just be a a little more bullet proof with mine.


Thanks a bunch!! Great ideas and exactly the kind of review I need. The yard area is already installed, and working okay. I have not seen derails there that I can recall, so I will probably not pull up that track. But your suggestions re the S curves and that southern wye are very helpful.


----------



## Longvallon

Thelic said:


> I've found that S-bends are to be avoided wherever possible.


Very good advice ! Thanks.


----------



## Gramps

Just as an FYI, I squeezed in one S curve siding and I have to limit it to a 4 axle diesel and 40' cars. A 50' boxcar derails on it.


----------

