Looking for Layout Suggestions

I am asking for comments about my proposed track plan where I want to run two independent trains and I don't know what turnouts, track, or other accessories are needed to get the job done. Since I've never done this before (although I've read a lot about it over the past few years), I still don 't exactly know what I'm doing.

Bob,
You'll want to look into reversing loops since the outside loop to the right reverses train direction.

Mark

Before you get too far along and paint yourself into a corner, you may want to look through some track plans that have already been designed with certain operational characteristics (such as two continuous running trains) into account: jamesriverbranch.net/plans.htm

Most of the plans can be built with your choice of track, and some of them may be adapted to the space you've already laid out. Hope this helps.

I see a few challenges with this plan. First, if you are looking a continuos running, it can't happen with the plan. The issue is that you reverse polarity on the track. You can run trains continually on the two left loops, but then the right loop becomes isolated.


To avoid this, move the lower red line so it does not connect side by side, but position it to meet the track in the middle of the inner loop. This will give you the ability to run into the large loop on the right or into the tow inner loops.

Without crossings, you will need grades. Over-under operations would be cool. Just watch your grades. It is recommended to keep them 2% of less. The steeper the grade, the less you will be able to pull.

Yard space is a big one for me. You don't have any sidings or even a small yard to store trains. If you are looking at running multiple trains, sidings or a small yard really are your friend. The top straight track would be ideal to put a siding or two for storage. Think of it this way, you can have trains staged ready to run. With this plan, you will have to take the train off of the track, and build the new one instead of doing all of this via a siding. You may also want to include a spur or two to handle industries of line side structures.

Definitely take a look at David's trackplans. You have a good bit of space to work with and have quite a lot of options.

Rob

I concur with the others. If you could build layout you would be in the top echelon of electrical gurus. Check out David's track plans or any of the many books found at your loco hobby shop. DCC is the cure to most track issues today.

My best advice is to scrap your plan and explore other choices. Yours is a bit of a nighmare. Jim

Bob,

One thing you didn't state obviously, except in your use of the reversing loop, was that you wanted to run two independent trains in two different directions (this is not a given as some people might think). And unless the trains are on two separated tracks or you're using Rokuhan track with its isolating turnouts, this needs to be taken into account when designing a track plan. Did you actually WANT a reversing loop on your layout? If so, like Mark said, there are some electronics that need to be thought out first.

Since a track plan like Stony’s uses Micro-Trains track this would mean that to run two trains independently of each other, the use of track blocking is still needed. If using Rokuhan track these track blocks could be achieved simply with the turnouts themselves. I’m just sayin’, ya know. I mean, I’m not saying you should use one track over another. For example, I LOVE Rokuhan track, but the layout I’m just starting to build right now uses Marklin track simply due to the fact that I like the look of it for this particular layout. I really like the look of Micro-Trains Flex track and Fast Tracks turnouts better, but I don’t think I have the time right now to go that route. Same as I like the look of hand laid track even better… but time is always at a premium these days, isn’t it?

Also, I doubt you’d “find” any X crossings that would fit your plan (and besides they all appear to be different angles), and so you’d need to make them yourself. Not something most beginners are capable of, or want to consume themselves with when creating their first layout. Stony is right, you’ll have to raise the red track over the green. And Rob is right, nothing more than a 2% grade is recommended – however Rob was misleading when he said the steeper the grade the less one is able to pull – Add More Locos - Pull More up a steeper grade (to a point, that is)!

Now because of the way you have your reverse loop set up here Bob, it’s obvious that your trains originally move to the west (or to the left assuming the photo is oriented correctly). That means that without using a switch each time a train goes around, you’re stuck with going around two basic loops (one oval and one more of a circle). And unless you plan to back a train alllllll the way back around it, the large reverse loop is pretty much wasted on a one time change of direction. There’s just no way to get back to it to use it again, even as part of an oval. That’s a lot of real estate to, more or less, waste and no long runs other than the one-time direction change. If you cut back over to it in the middle of the lower foreground with the use of a couple more turnouts, you’d have a way to use the big outside loop again. Of course this would put the track close to the edge, if not overhang it, which brings up the next point. Is this is the exact area you have to work with? That red track in the lower right is way too close to the edge for comfort (one derailment there and a loco could really get damaged in the fall). If you can, stay at least 2 inches from the edges. In my opinion, your plan needs a bit more work.

Also, one thing that’s often over looked by the beginner is just what track is best suited for which engines/cars. It doesn’t look like you’d have any problem with your curves, but remember the tighter the curve, the less likely a longer loco or car will go around it. [Anyone – where’s an updated chart of what locos go around which curves without a problem, located at?]

(And just for clarity - Stony, at least on my monitor, your track plan is a bit deceiving when viewed as this image - the area in the lower left (just above the number 1) appears it MIGHT be a crossover, when in fact the tracks are not interconnected. At least I personally had to load it into Xtrkcad, to be certain of what it was.)


One last thing I’d like to address here is the fact that these fancy model railroad layouts do look COOL when set up and running properly! We all get lost in our own little railroad world, and we can get this great feeling of accomplishment when the layout is completed (but are they ever really completed?)! Maybe that’s why, first thing out of the gate, we all want to dive right in and build the Coolest Thing Ever. But speaking from experience – less complicated is the way to go for a beginner.

What would REALLY be helpful Bob, is if you said just what it is in your layout plan that you’re going for. Was the shape of the area chosen for a particular reason? What area do you have to work with; could it be any size/shape? Did you have a plan for particular buildings in a particular area of the layout? What terrain were you going to go for? Anyone, including myself, could help you out with changes to a layout to “make it work”, BUT we aren’t inside your head. We don’t know what might look good to you, or what you’re shooting for. Which locos did you plan to use? What length cars? Was a reverse loop what you were really going for? Did both trains need to interact with one another or could it simply be one track inside another (yet still look cool and complicated)?

I almost forgot. David Smith had a good suggestion.... go looking at other, already designed layouts - like his! Perhaps you can find one close to your wants/needs and change it to your liking (then ask the group for suggestions again).

I know I rambled a bit here, but I hope this all helps.


Joe

Hopefully, CaptBob, will remember to drop in and see all these great comments.... Jim

Lots of good info posted thus far CaptBob; hope this little bit helps too.

Have you thought about down loading a track planning / CAD program?

Years ago I bought for PC/DOS called Design Your Own Railroad; though not very good as CAD type one thing it did really well was let you run trains on your layout plan!

Old screen shot here:







Here's a couple I saw referenced here, (and there are others), the 2nd has a run trains option:

www.anyrail.com/index_en.html


www.xtrkcad.org/Wikka/HomePage




FYI: my Coffee Table Layout; the screen shot above was part of it's planning: www.zcentralstation.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=12928&Itemid=212#12950

There is a problem with track planning software that is inherent to all of the applications equally: while they help create a track plan that's successful from the standpoint of track pieces fitting together, none of the programs can instruct users in what makes a track plan successful from an operational point of view. This is an acquired skill that cannot be magically obtained by pushing some buttons.

Track planning software really is part of the final step: that is, to draft a plan that serves as the blueprint for building the layout. Up to that point, these programs should actually be avoided, because more often than not they allow the modeler to paint themselves into a corner faster and easier than ever.

The process of building a layout from scratch, at least for those who are new to track planning, begins by reading. Get a book or two on basic track planning (there are plenty from which to choose). Search online for sites that offer information on the basics of layout design. Look at track plans that have already been designed, and try to envision how they may suit your needs.

Once you start getting a feeling for what you're after, then discuss your ideas on forums, where skilled modelers can offer critiques on various track plan ideas. There are lots of discussion forums devoted just to track planning, where you can glean valuable information from very learned modelers with years of experience.

At this point you may start getting ideas about what will suit your needs. Hopefully, if it's your first layout, it's small, because the last thing you want to do is begin with an advanced layout only to have it die before any trains have run because it's way over your head.

Then, with a working idea for a small layout, you can start shopping for track planning software. The program will allow you to verify that your idea is feasible, and also give you a shopping list.

Again, notice that track planning software comes last, just before construction begins, because the software isn't going to be able to tell you if the layout will accomplish your goals; it will only help you verify how to build it, and what you'll need.

Sorry David but I think you’re off base here. I agree that a beginner should start a bit simpler than most, but aside from the reversing loop, it didn’t appear Bob was talking about an extravagant affair here. What was needed was more clarity as to what he actually wanted the layout to do.

And yes, I agree books can be a great source of inspiration/ideas/education, but most beginners have already gotten an inspiration elsewhere and have an idea of what they would like to do. They didn’t just wake up one day and think to themselves, “I’m going to build a layout today”. They would almost certainly have been nosing around other friend’s layouts/books/magazines/train shows/hobby shops/et al, before they decided to act on their impulse to build a layout. And the best education comes from experience, and any mistakes learned along the way.

It’s a bit unfair to ask someone that wants to create a layout – *right now* - to… Slow down… Read a few books… Search around for another person’s layout that might suit his needs… Learn the basics first. I doubt this is the way ANY of us started in trains. And we wouldn’t ask our 8 year old to start that way either. Why? Because it’s no fun that way. We want to at least, get our first layout up and running before we might want to delve much deeper into the theories involved in professional track laying.

The truth is, “the basics”, are a circle of track placed on a piece of plywood. Which essentially, is what Bob had there. Granted there were three “circles” of track, and one of those circled back onto itself (intentional or otherwise, we don’t know?), but he already had his basic idea. Why talk him out of it. The problem was that we needed more information to understand what he was really trying to do. Perhaps he did need a book (on wiring, or possibly hand laid crossovers), but we didn’t know that yet.

What Bob REALLY NEEDED was Track Planning Software right off the bat. Had he used it, he would most certainly have known what crossovers were available pre-made. Or with the lack of a crossover for his particular angle, that he would have needed to bridge the other tracks in some way. He would have known if his idea would actually fit in the area he had allocated for it as well… and at that point… he could have asked for critique. At that point we could have told him he needs to read up on reversing loops and that they are special because the track doubles back onto itself needing a change in polarity along the way.

What you might have done here, is completely turned off a newcomer and turned them away from model railroading altogether rather than actually helped him. I’m not trying to start an argument here, and this is just my opinion after all. But I believe track planning software would have helped Bob a great deal here.

And as Jim (JRB) mentions above, there is still FREE track planning software out there… XTrkCAD, albeit to me, not that great. (www.xtrkcad.org/Wikka/HomePage and the download link is directly under the Contents heading on the right). To me, XTrkCAD seems rather amateurish, but hey, it works, and if your pocketbook is low due to buying Z Scale, then it should suit one just fine until one can afford something better. And Anyrail, arguable the best for track planning in Z scale, still has a free trial version available - limited to create layouts of up to 50 sections of track (which, believe me, isn’t that many pieces). (Download page www.anyrail.com/download_en.html). Anyrail normally costs $59.00, and it seems like a lot of money for track planning software that doesn’t even allow one to run trains on it. I wondered how they could charge this price… that is, until I tried the free version. It’s well worth the money as far as I’m concerned. In fact, I think it’s what you use, isn’t it David?

Hope this differing opinion helps… that is, if CaptBob ever returns to read all of these comments!

Joe

Zcratchman_Joe wrote: What Bob REALLY NEEDED was Track Planning Software right off the bat. Had he used it, he would most certainly have known what crossovers were available pre-made. Or with the lack of a crossover for his particular angle, that he would have needed to bridge the other tracks in some way. He would have known if his idea would actually fit in the area he had allocated for it as well… and at that point… he could have asked for critique. At that point we could have told him he needs to read up on reversing loops and that they are special because the track doubles back onto itself needing a change in polarity along the way.

Knowing what crossovers were available or not is irrelevant; they can find out the same thing from a good online hobby shop. If he didn't understand the basics of track planning from the outset, how is the software supposed to tell him these things? Would the software have been able to explain what a reversing loop is, and present the special wiring requirements? Or what a yard is, and how to use it? Will it tell him the difference between a leading or trailing siding? Or the difference between DC and DCC? None of the planning software I've seen (which is a lot) explains how to manage grades; yes, they can tell you what the grades are, but does it tell you what's best practice? Can software make any recommendations on how to improve your track plan, or find the operational flaws? Tell me how it can explain what minimum radius curves to use, based on whether he'd be running freight or passenger trains.

I think it is perfectly fair to tell someone who wants to build a layout right now to slow down--indeed, especially now, as he's on an important cusp. Would you rather he rush into things and find that what he wants to build isn't buildable? Or that it doesn't do what he wants? If he well and truly wants to build a layout, how is my offer to help get him what he wants going to turn him off from modeling? The only people that get turned off from an offer to help are impatient folks who don't care if what they want to do isn't going to work; they'll build it anyway, find out only then that it doesn't work, and then get turned off from the hobby. That is what I've seen happen far, far more times than I care to count.

I stand by my conviction that track planning software is most definitely not the first thing you use if you've never built a layout before. I've seen it time and time and time again, because I happen to offer track planning services on the side to model railroaders, and on a regular basis I'll get an email from someone who has never built a layout before, but has tried to design something with track planning software, asks me to help them, and what they've done is totally unworkable. I must then undo what so many others have done: use the wrong tool at the wrong time. I've also been thanked more than a few times for steering people toward track planning books and websites before getting down to business.

Me? I had my loops-on-the-table phase, but my first serious layout, the Newport and Rock Falls, was built from a track planning book I'd found after reading several modeling magazines. Call me the exception, but I got into modeling the way that most professional track planners recommend: start by reading about what you want to do. Jumping in blindly, without looking where you're leaping, is not the best approach; it can lead to unmet expectations, wasted time and money, and a loss of interest in the hobby.

Unfortunately, the siren call of track planning software is strongest with those of least experience. Track planning software doesn't make you a layout designer any more than drawing software makes you an artist. It just doesn't work that way!

maybe I am old school but I think David you hit the nail squarely on the head on this one.

cheers garth

You’re right Garth, David hit the nail on the head in his last paragraph…

Track planning software doesn't make you a layout designer …

David and Garth, YOU are both designers. Please forgive me, but I didn’t think we were talking about being a (I quote) designer (end quote) here! I thought we were talking about a guy that has an idea in his head for what he would like to build for his model train layout, and right away you’re talking designer like he wants to go pro next week. Sure it’s all designing, but there are differences between what you do on a pro level and what the common man may wish to do… and maybe that’s only to run a few trains?

David… and I stand by what I said.

Bob HAD a track plan in mind. Yes, it had a reverse loop, but was that needed for what he wanted to accomplish? Might separate tracks have best suited him instead of the interconnected tracks he had? And Bob has already slowed down… slowed to the extent he came here to ZCS to ask for advice!

I think we’re talking apples and oranges here David. I’m talking what people picture in their minds as to what a layout will LOOK LIKE in the end, and you’re talking about its functionality when it’s complete. Both are important when one thinks about their future layout, but things like “out of the ordinary” functionality are not thought out with the beginner, nor should it really be that big a deal to them… Because they should be building a simpler layout, with normal operations functionality. Nothing fancy to worry about, and had Bobs plan not had a reverse loop, I doubt we’d even be in this conversation.

I believe that when a newbie decides to build a layout, they start with a picture in their mind of what they would like to see in a layout – buildings, mountains, trees, roads, mills, houses, shrubs,etc. What is wrong with software showing them IF this plan is even possible? Track planning software allows them to know if what they see, in their mind, is actually possible with the limited number of track pieces Z scale has to offer. Once they know that what they see in their mind can actually be laid out, they can, as Bob has done here, ask for help in a forum. At that point their track plan can be fine tuned, if needed, but at least they have a half-assed idea of if there are even track pieces available to build it? If the layout cannot be made as planned, they may need to start over, scratching their original idea for something quite different. .. Say go from their first idea of an old-time logging mill in the mountains, to their second idea of a modern industrial site laying on flat ground. Without the track planning software, they could have spend countless hours researching what, in the end, could not be built without learning to hand lay track or something else to that effect. It’s just as bad as laying out track as Bob has done above. It’s pretty much useless unless one actually snaps the track together to make sure of the angles and bends - it can be very surprising how things change when the track is actually snapped together - track planning software makes this a “snap”, so to speak.

Bob has already stated he’s done a lot of reading over the past few years. Perhaps… he just wants to run some trains and this was what he saw in his head?

In Bob’s case, we need more information about his layout goals.

I’m attaching a few images from Anyrail where I sort of duplicated Bobs layout idea using Rokuhan track. The first image is the original, with the reverse loop. The second image is the same as the original except with a cutback in the foreground. This cutback allows the train to use the entire large outside loop (and bypass the original reverse loop if so wanted), and use the large loop in either direction as well. Also, with this much area, it would be just as easy to use a wye instead of a reverse loop for changing direction. It all depends on what Bob actually sees in his layout.

Thanks to heavy use of Rokuhan’s flex track, I’ve also included a third layout just for fun with two reverse loops so the train can change direction back again without backing all the way around. It would be a wiring medusa, that’s for sure, and I don’t recommend it for beginners. Note: The green track on these three layouts needs to be raised over the other track. And if there’s a problem with the grade being too steep, try lowering the bottom tracks by ½ the grade (like a saddle) and then raising the upper tracks by ½ less. That way there’s only ½ the struggle to make each grade.

And lastly, I’m attaching a future layout plan for when Rokuhan puts out the 90 degree crossings it’s promised. It’s based on Bobs layout idea, but with the use of the 90’s and a lot of flex track, there’s no need to raise any track over any other. Plus, just for fun, there’s a long wye for reversing direction running right down the middle of it. It also has two separate tracks for running trains in both directions, yet they’re connected to one another. Plus there’s still that half loop one could park trains on or run around. Just think of the fun one could have running two long trains and needing to uncouple one train running on the inner track in the middle, just so the train on the outer track could use the wye. Plus there’s still space for a few sidings here and there. And because it uses Rokuhan turnouts, this should all be able to be done without any “special” wiring. Pure fantasy? Sure, but sometimes, that’s what people are after!

I do agree with you David, in the idea that Bob needs to put more thought into a layout this size. A large reverse loop like that is a fun onetime turn around, but after that, what good is it? And there really is nowhere to run two trains independently of each other without a lot of extra electronics. But I don’t think Bob needs to start reading all he can get his hands on in order to make something like this feasible himself… I think he needs to pay more attention to detail and he should be good… as long as he can get a little help from those of us here willing to help him.









I’d attach the Anyrail .any files for the layouts but it appears the forum doesn’t allow Anyrail files. I'll give it a shot anyway

Hello to all, and thanks for your help. Some of the suggested layouts make a lot more sense than my track plan. Tomorrow I will try to print all responses and track plans. I may then come back and ask for ideas as to what specific track/turnouts I will need to get moving. Elevating over/under track will not be a problem; I intended to do this anyway.

I'm looking forward to learning more.

Thank you, again.

Bob

Stony,

Thanks for your response. As I said a few minutes ago in my Forum response, can you advise what turnouts I'll need to work this track plan? Based on this and others' suggestions it sort of looks like I'm not too far off with my plans.

Regards,

Bob

Stony,

I just found this suggested layout you sent. It looks okay to me. Is the list of track and turnouts what I'll need to get going? It looks like a lot of stuff.

Thanks again,

Bob

Joe,

I responded to everyone's suggestions on the Forum a little while ago but I wanted to thank you personally for taking the time to address my questions. I will print your response tomorrow and review it carefully, then get back to you with questions or comments. I really appreciate the help from Forum members.

Regards,

Bob

Joe,

Your first layout plan looks like it might work in my space. As you pointed out, I want to keep this reasonably simple. My original plan was merely based on the shape of the platform I built, the Micro-Trains track that I have (just random), and my imagination. For your information, my general "life philosophy" if you want to call it that, is to keep things as simple as possible but not simpler.

Thanks again.

I will try to print the track plan tomorrow, and get back on the Forum tomorrow night if all goes well.

Regards,

Bob