# First layout plan in decades - Feedback?



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

Back in the hobby after 3 decades or so, just put together a track plan and looking for feedback.
Used to be pencil and paper...Used to be things never fit like I planned.

Installed AnyRail last week, and did this over the weekend...

Space is 12' along the back wall, with a 6' 6" wall on the left, and a 10' 6" on the right. There are necessary doorways at the end of both walls.
Section B and C are just barely roughed out, but A is close to what I think I want, and where I would start.
HOn3 mine operation ~> Transfer station ~> Standard gauge to dock side.

(Don't know about elevation and grades yet, still learning how to do that in AR)

Thoughts?


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Surely you plan using DCC for your power source.
A layout of that size and complexity almost cries out
for it. It enables Train A to run clockwise while
Train B is going counterclockwise on the same track.
To do that tho, you would want to add a couple more
passing sidings in the B and C sections.

Looks like some interesting switching challenges in
the A section. The B section is a little unclear but
it appears that you have a Wye set up that will require
a Reverse loop controller.

You'll want to create a 'causeway' on both ends
of a lift bridge when you complete your loop as
shown in the lower part of your drawing.

Don


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

I would put a loop in at day one, not future. Squeeze one in


----------



## Fire21 (Mar 9, 2014)

If you have walls on all three sides, then the reach to the top of all three sections will be impossible. Typical reach is around 3 feet or a bit more. Is that area outlined in red to be cut out to allow you access to all areas of the layout? Your future loop would be a duck-under "bridge"?

I agree with Dennis461...put that loop in right away. You'll not regret it.


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

DonR said:


> Surely you plan using DCC for your power source.


Nope...I would love to do that, but all my equipment would require modifications. 
I am fine with DC. It is what I know, nothing too complicated on this plan.
Besides...I am the only operator, and the rundown mine company doesn't run many trains... 

Thanks for the comments...


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

Dennis461 said:


> I would put a loop in at day one, not future. Squeeze one in


I can put it in the drawing, and call it Section D, but I won't start construction until section B and C are done. What happens there might change things...
Here is the deal. I am building in sections. I won't start section B, until section A is up and running. I have to work in small bites, or I never finish these kind of things.


Fire21 said:


> If you have walls on all three sides, then the reach to the top of all three sections will be impossible. Typical reach is around 3 feet or a bit more. Is that area outlined in red to be cut out to allow you access to all areas of the layout? Your future loop would be a duck-under "bridge"?


The green is the area I have to work with, the red line is my benchwork. 
None of my reaches would be more than 30-34 inches.
The "future loop" would have to have a duck under or lift out. Really don't want that. 
And I really don't mind point to point.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

BobT said:


> Nope...I would love to do that, but all my equipment would require modifications.
> I am fine with DC. It is what I know, nothing too complicated on this plan.
> Besides...I am the only operator, and the rundown mine company doesn't run many trains...
> 
> Thanks for the comments...


Actually, the way you have laid it out, especially with a reversing loop, the DC wiring is going to be fairly complex. DCC takes all the fiddly out of the wiring for you. Having to modify your locos isn't really that big a deal. Once you have one under your belt, you'll be able to bang them out pretty quickly. And even if you're just running one train at a time, the opportunity to have more than one loco on the layout without worrying about parking them in de-energized sidings, is a pretty awesome benefit.

Of course, you're free to do as you like on your own layout, but don't shy away from DCC just because it's new.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

BobT said:


> Back in the hobby after 3 decades or so, just put together a track plan and looking for feedback.
> Used to be pencil and paper...Used to be things never fit like I planned.
> 
> Installed AnyRail last week, and did this over the weekend...
> ...


Personally, I think you've crammed too much track into too small a space on Section A. But that's largely a matter of personal taste. You don't have room for much in the way of scenery / structures there, especially in the bottom half. Again, mostly personal preference, but I'd drop in a few structures (the Object Libraries in AnyRail contain a dozen or so, but the User Objects, which you have to download, contains thousands of pre-built structures created by other users) and see if anything fits.

What I do worry about is trying to build it modularly the way you have designed it. You have two separate sections of track, which are completely isolated from each other. Your connection is in Section B. This will really limit what you can do until you get Section B up and running. You mention HO / HOn3 interchanges.... do you envision that one of these sections will be standard gauge, and one narrow? If so, how are you planning to actually link the tracks in Section B as you've shown?

As far as the loop goes, I understand the approach you're taking. It may not be much of an issue if you flesh out the other sides, but thematically right now, you have a small switching layout in section A and a lot of dead space in B and C. If you have more things to do in those sections, you may not need the loop, but as it stands, it's almost not worth building the rest of the layout.

Elevations and grades. I think you're about to hit a brick wall there. You're in HO Scale, so conservatively, you need 3" vertical separation between the railhead of the lower track and any overhead obstruction (subroadbed of the upper track, or bridge support structure). Even at 3% grade (the high end of "practical" grades, you need 33" of travel to gain 1" -- so over 8' to gain that 3", and the same to come back down. You have that on the right side, but not on the left. Unless your vision is that one set of tracks will be elevated in section A, but then that complicates the transloading process. Even with an elevated track on section A, you don't have enough room to join the legs of the Y as you have drawn it at a reasonable grade.

Grades in AnyRail are easy to manage. Under the SETTINGS menu bar, make sure you have a assigned a maximum slope % and a minimum vertical clearance. Now designate a "segment" of track where you want the slope to be by highlighting all the sections that will comprise it (if you slope is going to begin or end in the middle of a piece of flex track, right click on that piece and say "Cut Flex Here"; you don't actually have to cut the flex there when you build the layout). On the TRACK menu bar, select "Create Segment". Now right click on one of the end points and select "Set Height", then right click again and say "Lock Height". This will keep the software from changing those heights. Now Select the segment you just created, and on the TRACK menu bar, select "Smooth Slope", and it will create a constant slope between the elevations you specified. On the SHOW menu bar, make sure you have selected "Slope Percentages", "Height", and "Vertical Clearance". Now you can see the height of your track and the slope of any given segment, as well as the vertical clearance to any object you have drawn, including track. If you have set the max values, and exceeded any of them, the numbers will be red. I would urge you to use this process and get your grades down to an acceptable level before you spend a whole lot of time adding anything else, because you'll probably end up with a lot of tinkering to make it work.

Good concept though. Keep at it, and I think you'll create an excellent layoutt.


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> Actually, the way you have laid it out, especially with a reversing loop, the DC wiring is going to be fairly complex. DCC takes all the fiddly out of the wiring for you. Having to modify your locos isn't really that big a deal. Once you have one under your belt, you'll be able to bang them out pretty quickly. And even if you're just running one train at a time, the opportunity to have more than one loco on the layout without worrying about parking them in de-energized sidings, is a pretty awesome benefit.
> 
> Of course, you're free to do as you like on your own layout, but don't shy away from DCC just because it's new.


CTV,
Thanks,

DCC is not that new, right? It has to be at least 20 years, that I've been reading about it.
But, the cost/benefit isn't there for me. They don't give that stuff away.

I am fine with DC. Never though of it as complex, even with reverse loops.
Tedious, maybe, but not complex.

Also, I did promised myself I'd use what have, rather than buy more stuff.
(I can always change my mind down the road)


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> Personally, I think you've crammed too much track into too small a space on Section A. But that's largely a matter of personal taste. You don't have room for much in the way of scenery / structures there, especially in the bottom half. Again, mostly personal preference, but I'd drop in a few structures (the Object Libraries in AnyRail contain a dozen or so, but the User Objects, which you have to download, contains thousands of pre-built structures created by other users) and see if anything fits.
> 
> What I do worry about is trying to build it modularly the way you have designed it. You have two separate sections of track, which are completely isolated from each other. Your connection is in Section B. This will really limit what you can do until you get Section B up and running. You mention HO / HOn3 interchanges.... do you envision that one of these sections will be standard gauge, and one narrow? If so, how are you planning to actually link the tracks in Section B as you've shown?
> 
> ...


I can't tell you how much appreciate you taking the time to give me such detailed answers. 
Some very good points in there, which I will address separately, later.

One thing I wasn't clear about in the opening post. Sections B/C will not be empty, I just haven't put anything in there yet. And the loop, that's a just in case option. Quite happy with a point to point.

I just replaced the plan with a slightly improved one.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

BobT said:


> Back in the hobby after 3 decades or so, just put together a track plan and looking for feedback.
> Used to be pencil and paper...Used to be things never fit like I planned.
> 
> Installed AnyRail last week, and did this over the weekend...
> ...


Hi. It looks like an interesting plan, and it will offer some challenges, but also some diversity. My only druther, were I asked, is that you eliminate the topmost trackage in section B. That short segment really complicates things in that section, and frankly I feel it should be unnecessary. Why not just connect to the main track below it, making adjustments here and there with your curvatures on the approaches, and using perhaps curved turnouts if they make things easier?


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

Thanks for the nice comment.

Apparently the drawing is a little confusing. There is no connection between the narrow gauge and the standard gauge.
Here is a closer view.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

BobT said:


> Thanks for the nice comment.
> 
> Apparently the drawing is a little confusing. There is no connection between the narrow gauge and the standard gauge.
> Here is a closer view.


Yes, that clarifies it. I thought it connected to the other track. That helps to solve the grade issue (although not the vertical separation issue for transloading, unless you're going to have some dumping arrangement where gravity will load the cars of the standard gauge road). But now it makes the loop connection that much more important to a smooth operational flow. You will want to figure out some way of turning trains on your standard gauge track.


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> Yes, that clarifies it. I thought it connected to the other track. That helps to solve the grade issue (although not the vertical separation issue for transloading, unless you're going to have some dumping arrangement where gravity will load the cars of the standard gauge road). But now it makes the loop connection that much more important to a smooth operational flow. You will want to figure out some way of turning trains on your standard gauge track.


Gravity dump is the plan. Small of course. Collecting photos of different types now.

The loop would be months (years?) away, so we'll see if I need/want it down the road.

As you suggested, I tried adding a few structures, and adjusting the track in section A. Ended up removing a siding, also. So thank you for that very good advice.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

BobT said:


> Thanks for the nice comment.
> 
> Apparently the drawing is a little confusing. There is no connection between the narrow gauge and the standard gauge.
> Here is a closer view.


Hmmm...the new view is quite different from what was posted at the top. I went back to glance at the top graphic a number of times to be sure I was commenting usefully, and was quite certain that the rising, curving, track crossed over at a complex intersection, rising in an arc above the 'main'. I also missed that you have dual gauge, so my bad there.


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

mesenteria said:


> Hmmm...the new view is quite different from what was posted at the top. I went back to glance at the top graphic a number of times to be sure I was commenting usefully, and was quite certain that the rising, curving, track crossed over at a complex intersection, rising in an arc above the 'main'. I also missed that you have dual gauge, so my bad there.


No, the mistake was all mine. The drawing was very unclear. 
Although, dual gauge would be fun.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Dual gauge would really increase your operating possibilities. Dual gauge turnouts can be made or bought too.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Whatever questionable track design there may be, unless you intend to to hand lay them, good luck finding curved crossings, and of correct Deg., for the *wye*...
I'd eliminate them altogether and have the wye come off the lower track [where the crossings are shown], replacing them with curved switches (TOs).


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

telltale said:


> Whatever questionable track design there may be, unless you intend to to hand lay them, good luck finding curved crossings, and of correct Deg., for the *wye*...
> I'd eliminate them altogether and have the wye come off the lower track [where the crossings are shown], replacing them with curved switches (TOs).


The lower track, (standard gauge), and the upper track, (narrow gauge), are not connected in any way.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*Oh ! Roger that !! Ok ! *
Then here is an excuse for a grade !: Have narrow gauge start climbing at midway down far left, before curve, crossing over Apple river, climbing into the hills to ore/coal mine/rock quarry/logging camp/whatever, with small Bldgs/town/diner/gas station in/around wye..
Main line stays at water level route below it, going under narrow gauge via tunnel& portals...
Hope I got that right this time...


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

telltale said:


> *Oh ! Roger that !! Ok ! *
> Then here is an excuse for a grade !: Have narrow gauge start climbing at midway down far left, before curve, crossing over Apple river, climbing into the hills to ore/coal mine/rock quarry/logging camp/whatever, with small Bldgs/town/diner/gas station in/around wye..
> Main line stays at water level route below it, going under narrow gauge via tunnel& portals...
> Hope I got that right this time...


You got it. 
Also considering the main line going down grade to the port, giving a little more elevation change between the two lines.

Still finalizing the plan for the first section. 

@CTValleyRR - I am also revisiting the DC/DCC question. Thanks for the nudge. But I am concerned about modifying the stack of Shinohara turnouts I have.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

If you go with 'open grid' or 'L girder' benchwork (instead of an all flat surface) you can have entire yard and main several inches above frame, on 'risers'. Then you can easily have main dip down somewhat from there before going under wye while lead track to wye lifts upward and the rest of its trackage on risers as well..


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Far as Shinohara switches go: 
If you connect the 2 DCC leads to main line over on right away from complex yard you should be OK not making any modifications to them.. 
Newer Shinos have already been gapped/insulated and thusly are 'all-live' types today. 
Earlier Shinos are 'power-routing' where one route is live and other route dead depending on which way points are thrown..You may or may not have to deal with some insulators or running feeders in particular places to get around this if they are the earlier kind. But I doubt you'll have to do anything to the switch components themselves.


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

Thanks. Yes, all of mine are older power routing turn outs.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

BobT said:


> Thanks. Yes, all of mine are older power routing turn outs.


Well, you could just install them leaving enough crossties out so that if, IF you have a problem you can slide rail joiners fully onto either opposing rails to be able to add insulator(s) in rails, lift entire switch out, or do whatever, to make it work...
I had one (older) curved Shino at one end of a passing siding in main on my [DCC] last last layout, and with insulators in diverging route had no prob whatsoever..


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

DonR said:


> Surely you plan using DCC for your power source.





BobT said:


> Nope...I would love to do that, but all my equipment would require modifications.
> I am fine with DC.





CTValleyRR said:


> Of course, you're free to do as you like on your own layout, but don't shy away from DCC just because it's new.





BobT said:


> I am fine with DC. Never though of it as complex, even with reverse loops.





BobT said:


> @CTValleyRR - I am also revisiting the DC/DCC question. Thanks for the nudge. But I am concerned about modifying the stack of Shinohara turnouts I have.


And here we are....Found this little GE 45-Ton, and it is DCC ready, so.....

EDIT: Well since I had a chance to play with this a bit, I can honestly say, "Thank you!" to everyone that told me I should go DCC - Y'all were right, and I was wrong.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Welcome to the 21st century. Nice locomotive.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I have one of those little GE's in New Haven paint. It works hard all day in Cedar Hill Yard, building trains for his big brothers to haul away.

IIRC, I had to use an N scale decoder to get it to fit, but mine is about 10 years old, so maybe that's changed.

And FWIW, you weren't wrong, just inexperienced. You listened with an open mind. That's the best way to get better!


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

Yes, it is a good running little thing. Got it a month ago from the UK. DCC ready from the factory. The board goes from nose to nose. Had the cover off once, and should have grabbed a photo. Converting to DC is a process, so I just waited until I found my DCC system.

Went with the MRC Advance 2, mostly because I liked the handheld. Was outbid a couple times, but finally got a used one at a decent price. Only missing the box and data cable. (But I have box of that stuff)

Now I am anxious to lay some track....


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

If your Shinohara turnouts were giving you momentary short circuits on DC then you may have to mess with them, but if they worked fine on DC they will be fine on DCC.


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

Lemonhawk said:


> If your Shinohara turnouts were giving you momentary short circuits on DC then you may have to mess with them, but if they worked fine on DC they will be fine on DCC.


Thank you....
I've already converted a couple, and it went well. Figured I might was well do them all, rather than have to do them later if there is trouble. I also located several Peco HOn3 turnouts...and they are pretty nice. Might keep my eye out for more.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I think you will be happy with the MRC. I started with the Prodigy Express, and upgraded to the wireless.

I too like the handheld. It's a good size for my hand and I greatly prefer the knob to the thumbwheel on the NCE units.


----------

