# 2D & C



## Shadow001 (Dec 15, 2016)

Well Unless anyone can see major problems with this layout, this is where I am going to start. The Turn out in bottom right will eventually go to a helix, the turnout at 3 oclock will to to my yard and round house etc. I will be putting some industries, along the top. Top left corner will be mountain with logging camp, and mill. Bottom left will be fishing area with ice house and fish processing plant. That is my thoughts to start, I'm sure some of it will change by before I get to it all.


----------



## Shadow001 (Dec 15, 2016)

This will be an N scale layout DC switching to DCC as soon as I get the funds.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Nice continuous running as it is...the yards and spurs
will sure make it great.

Reservations though: It's hard to tell, but the curve
radii seem a bit tight for a layout that large. Have you
checked to see how they measure out? 

Don


----------



## Shadow001 (Dec 15, 2016)

The outside turns are 15" the inside are 13.7". The length along the back wall is 11'6". The three shorter distances from the wall to edge of table will be 30" The larger piece on bottom right comes out 66" from wall and is 36" wide.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

Having 13+ in, rad. curves is perfectly fine for running diesels.However,if you wish to run big steam looking good,16+ rad. is recommended.


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

One minor suggestion. Replace the left turnout at 3:00 with a right turnout just one track section closer to the top of your layout -- in the first curved section. Then the straight part immediately becomes the start of the backbone of the yard -- off which the yard tracks branch. This will make all of your yard tracks about one car longer. It will also avoid an S curve right at the entrance to the first yard track.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

What is the grade going up to your over / under on the left side? Looks a little steep, especially with a turnout (which is tricky to get right on a slope) in the middle.


----------



## Shadow001 (Dec 15, 2016)

Brakeman Jake
I never even thought about running steam, I will probably find this really nice Steam engine for a prince I can't refuse at the next model railroad show. I will check out a plan with larger curves.

MtRR75,
Thanks, I would have never seen or thought of that in a million years.

CTValleyRR,
Right now they are all above 2% but under 3, I'm actually going to lower the low side 1/2 inch below the level of everything else so I can keep it under 2% hopefully. There will be 2 inches of clearance, I'm hoping that will be enough. (I didn't know how to go below 0 with Scarm)

Thank you all for your input.


----------



## Robert_56 (Dec 20, 2010)

Replying a bit late. Drew out the layout earlier in SCARM. 

Since you are using single UniTrack your track choice is limited in options for increasing the radius so none were made.

A few suggested mods, hope they are helpful.

Each yard track has been shortened by one S62mm piece in each track to allow for adding S62mm pieces to each of the turnouts before the yard to reduce/eliminate the S curve effect on the inner track.

The 3:00 turnout was also moved to reduce/eliminate the S curve effect. All that was done was swapping the turnouts position end to end with that of the S62mm piece. Doing it like this does not change any of the radii of any of the other tracks. 

Exiting your tunnel, the bridge(s) were shortened from S248mm to S186mm, it does not increase the length of the straight section but because the pilot of the engine will swing out (especially steam) when negotiating curved tracks, the change allows the front pilot a short distance to center itself back on the track and prevent any chance of the pilot catching on any part of the bridge, especially truss bridges.

That change forced the relocation of the turnout to the other side of the bridge.

Just in case it looks a bit off from your plan and since you use both, where possible, replaced the R348-30s with R348-45s. In the actual construction phase of the plan this will cut down on the number of rail joints.


----------



## Shadow001 (Dec 15, 2016)

Robert,
Thank you, I will definitely be making some of those changes.


----------



## Overkast (Jan 16, 2015)

Hey Shadow001, I have a few observations and some feedback for you:



Shadow001 said:


> The outside turns are 15" the inside are 13.7".


When I was researching N Scale radii before my build, it seemed the general consensus was to build your curves at no less than 15" radius if you planned on running passenger cars on that track (since they are long). So if you want to run passenger cars or long freight (like auto-racks), then your inner curves should be no less than 15" radius. That means your outer curves would have to be 16.25" radius for parallel track (double track) situations. So, I designed my entire layout using this standard and I can confirm I have no derailing issues on both my passenger cars and the auto-rack car.



Shadow001 said:


> The three shorter distances from the wall to edge of table will be 30" The larger piece on bottom right comes out 66" from wall and is 36" wide.


Consider 2 things here... your arm reach over structure / scenery obstructions, and access to the tracks against the wall. For obstructions, I find my arm's reach is actually reduced significantly by having to arch it over the obstructions without damaging them. Also, your track in the upper-left corner of your layout is my biggest concern, because those tracks are inside tunnels. If you have a derailment inside the tunnels, or you have repeated track issues there that ultimately need adjustment later, how will you access that track when it's covered by a mountain? Food for thought.



Shadow001 said:


> CTValleyRR,
> Right now they are all above 2% but under 3, I'm actually going to lower the low side 1/2 inch below the level of everything else so I can keep it under 2% hopefully.


I read a lot of mixed opinions on grade percentages. Prototype-loyalists seem to favor a "nothing exceeding 2%" stance, while others say "they wouldn't make a 4% grade incline for model railroading if it wasn't doable." Ultimately you need to take into consideration how long the trains will be that you plan on running, because the heavier a train the harder of a time it will have going up steeper grades. I set a personal standard for my layout right in the middle - 3% grade was my max, and that's what I designed. I'm not planning on having incredibly long trains running, but if I do and if it becomes a problem, I will just need to add another loco on the train to help increase the pull power to help the trains get up the slope.



Shadow001 said:


> There will be 2 inches of clearance, I'm hoping that will be enough. (I didn't know how to go below 0 with Scarm)


Yes, 2" should be enough as long as you're not running catenary / wire systems with electrical-overhead (pantograph) locomotives. Keeping in mind the roadbed and track also contributes to clearance heights, my auto-rack car tops out at 1-11/16" height with code 55 track + WS cork roadbed. So 2" is perfect for clearance.


----------



## Shadow001 (Dec 15, 2016)

Thanks for the comments Overkast, I do want to run some passenger cars, and auto-racks, so I guess I will take everyone's advice and redesign with larger turns. I have also been thinking about the tunnels in top left corner. I will see what I can do with shorter tunnels and maybe a good size canyon. I was thinking about putting trap door in there somewhere but this might be easier. It has been busy week at work, so I guess the redesign will have to wait till the weekend.


----------



## Overkast (Jan 16, 2015)

Shadow001 said:


> Thanks for the comments Overkast, I do want to run some passenger cars, and auto-racks, so I guess I will take everyone's advice and redesign with larger turns. I have also been thinking about the tunnels in top left corner. I will see what I can do with shorter tunnels and maybe a good size canyon. I was thinking about putting trap door in there somewhere but this might be easier. It has been busy week at work, so I guess the redesign will have to wait till the weekend.


You're welcome Shadow001. I had also considered a trap door at one point for my layout, but it would require me to access the track space from under the table. I eventually realized what a PITA that would be, especially if I had to redo track work in the tunnel. There's no way to get a good enough visual angle + freedom of arm room to wiggle in a trap door setup, unless the mountain cavern space is so big you could literally fit your whole upper body up inside the mountain. Could you imagine if you had to solder in the tunnel? Yikes!


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

On any layout,any spot that you can't reach automatically becomes a potential issue.According to Murphy's law,if you can't reach...you'll have to.However,tunnels are great scenic elements but,for different reasons (track cleaning and/or repair,derailments,etc),have to be accessible.My suggestion is a removeable mountain.


----------



## Shadow001 (Dec 15, 2016)

*plan 4.0*

OK now the only part I think I will have to worry about is bottom right when I go to put in my helix. I think I will have to build something that I can set on layout and reach to the wall. I might just build the helix out in middle part of room so I can go behind it. Not going to worry to much about it now, I think that will be long time from now.

All slopes will be under 3%, (will probably use Woodland scenics incline set) smallest radius will be 15", I might move the turnout close to 3 o'clock up one more track. 

The back wall is 11' 6" and I am coming 10' down each wall for now.

I have to have an opening top left anyway for outside tap that has frozen up on me before, I hope that is enough room to get in and work on layout. If not I will make it bigger when I am building bench work.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

It looks like you've got some turnouts there for potential future industries. You might want to consider how much space you have available and where it is.

I'm especially concerned that the 3 along the top edge (especially the one all the way to the right) and the one on the lower right don't have a lot of room to work with. I would move two of the ones at the top and the one on the lower right to the INSIDE track, giving you more space to play with.


----------



## Shadow001 (Dec 15, 2016)

CTValleyRR said:


> It looks like you've got some turnouts there for potential future industries. You might want to consider how much space you have available and where it is.
> 
> I'm especially concerned that the 3 along the top edge (especially the one all the way to the right) and the one on the lower right don't have a lot of room to work with. I would move two of the ones at the top and the one on the lower right to the INSIDE track, giving you more space to play with.


CTValleyRR,

I still have no sense of the scale. I know it is 1/160, but I can not picture how much space that is. ah @$%@ I was suppose to make the top like the other picture, where the top tracks move down a little bit. I was thinking of putting something on the inside as well, my town will go in there. Probably more track as well. I need to see it. The one at the lower right is to go into my future helix.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Figure your average locomotive and full sized passenger car will be about 6" long; older freight cars 3-4". 

The problem, though, is that it only looks like you have about 9" between the track and the edge of your layout, so putting sidings and a believable structure to support it is going to be very cramped in many cases.


----------



## Shadow001 (Dec 15, 2016)

Thanks CTValleyRR,
I have been looking more at layout and there is still things I need fixing. I think I need at least one auto reversing loop as well. Think I will just try and build some of my bench work and wait until after I go to train show in my area. So I can see some displays actually set up.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

You can add a reverse loop on either side. On the left, just connect two of the tracks leading to the over / under -- the only hard part there is dealing with the grade. Or on the right, just connect through the center of the loop.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I'll always vote for a reverse loop in a layout. It makes
for much more interesting train operations.

In an oval situation as is this layout it gets tricky.
If you simply run an angle track from the inner 
oval upper left down to the inner oval lower right
you can easily access it from only one direction. You
would have to back into it to again change direction.

To have access from both directions you would need
a double crossover in that right area. That, however,
produces 2 reverse isolated sections requiring two
reverse loop controllers.

Some think that could be simplified by making the
double crossover the reverse section. Each
of the crossing tracks would need to be longer
to accomodate a train. But the real problem of this
is that there would be 4 access points and that is
certain to lead to two trains trying to get in the 
double crossover at the same time, resulting in
a short circuit.

Decisions, decisions. 

Don


----------



## Shadow001 (Dec 15, 2016)

Excuse my poor free hand.

Reverse loop 1 is a standard reverse loop. My question is for number 2 reversing onto a different track? Am I asking for trouble doing something like that or is it not a problem.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

Looping from track A to rack B doesn't matter,you'll need a polarity reversing module anyway.Current doesn't care direction as long as polarity is taken care of.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

.

A reverse loop exists if you can turn a train around
and go in the opposite direction ON THE SAME
TRACK. The free hand drawing of #2 is a basic
reverse loop even though it is crossing between
two ovals.

# 1 is also just a simple reverse loop.

The tracks that create the reverse loop will be
your isolated sections.

You'll need a reverse loop controller for each
of these. # 1 appears to be long enough for a good
size train, #2 seems to be also but care should be
taken to make sure both are longer than your
longest lighted passenger train. 

There is an unclear dark area between the 2 tracks in
the straightway with the passing sidings. I can't
tell if that is a crossover. If it is that may change
the situation.

I would omit the two reverse loop tracks until you
switch to DCC. You can lay them and use insulated
joiners but don't use them. A short would result.

The wiring for these situations
as DC can be complicated, and so is the operation.
There are automatic controllers for DC but then you
might have to get new ones when you went DCC.

Don


----------



## Shadow001 (Dec 15, 2016)

DonR said:


> .
> 
> There is an unclear dark area between the 2 tracks in
> the straightway with the passing sidings. I can't
> ...


Hi Don,

Yes that is a double cross over.


----------

