# New Layout suggestions



## reeveha (Jan 2, 2008)

Finally after years of false starts, right-of-way discussions, and 4 days on the bus tours at the 2009 NGRC, the CEO has finally given the go ahead to start laying track.

I've been using RR-Tracks to create several layouts over the years and thought I'd ask for some opinions on a couple of them that we've agreed on.

The layouts will be using SS track with no curves less than the 10' diameter. It will be track powered with either TE or Revolution on-board control. The one thing my better half requests that we have a waterfall and pond.

The first layout:










Theres a 2% grade on the portion going over the track and around the mountain. The bottom staging area will probably change a little. The upper area will be some type of mining line with mill (thanks to the Denver area layouts).

The second design:








In this design, there has no grade but has 2 mains. This one should allow us to run both my wife's BBT Circus train (abt 15 cars) and my new acquired 6 car heavyweight consist. 

I feel both designs offer some interesting movement as well as providing the viewer some hidden surprises.


So let the suggestions begin.

Regards,

Herb Reeves


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Interesting designs Herb! Personally, I'd lean toward the first design as it is visually more interesting and it also offers the ability to modify it's design in order to run separate trains on isolated tracks if you so choose in the future. (I'm assuming you'll be giving us a call when you are ready to start!)


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I'd add at least two passing sidings so you can run in opposit directions. Long enough to pass the circus train with out saw-bys.... 

If you want 'operation' you'll need sidings for industry, picking up and setting cars out breaks the looping with an interesting diversion. 

John


----------



## reeveha (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for the comments. 

Steve, I like the first as well but thought the second would give the ability to run two consiists at the same time. Remember I will be using track power to start out. 

John, On the first design I wouldn't know where to add a second siding, on the second I thought of another at the top. But both only use the track I've already have on hand and only have a limited budget for additional expenditures 

Thanks again 

Herb


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I just noticed.... you have a couple of reverse curves that can cause problems. 

We usually try to have a straight section betweeen the opposite curves, as long as your longer cars/locos. 

On the first design I'd add the second siding outside of the upper pond to the green mountain. 

The second is already two loops so not as much of a deal. 

Odd..."let the suggestions begin" 

and; "But both only use the track I've already have on hand and only have a limited budget for additional expenditures " 

So; nice layouts, tell us what you chose. 

you're welcome.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Is the grid 1 foot squares? 

Too many S curves... 

On the second design you used a curve, then a straight, then a curve, in the upper right corner... don't do that, make the curves the widest smooth radius you can... 

On the second design you only have one S curve with no straight in the middle, work at least 1-2 feet in there and you will have better operation... after that work in more sidings etc as already suggested. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Ironton (Jan 2, 2008)

Herb,

I like the second one better. You could still elevate the inner loop as it goesa around the mountains so it would not have to stay flat.

I would however make one immediate change to it. I would switch the two crossovers from the outer to the inner loop. The reasons are:


1) If the crossing from the outer to the inner were placed at the end of the yard you could leave the yard an go directly to whichever loop with minimal interference to the outer loop when using the inner loop.


2) The crossovers sould form a passing track for the outer loop which is where you will be showing off your finest equipment.

3) The section of inner loop could be used as a yard lead for the yard. Would make switching easier.



Hope this helps.


----------



## reeveha (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks guys, keep the suggestions coming.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

The thing I most like about the first design is that it allows for expansion better than the second. It would be simplicity in itself to continue the outer line around and connect it thus making the second independent loop. I would agree with Greg about the S curves if you were planning on running standard gauge 1:29 stuff but if you are going to model narrow gauge it doesn't cause that much trouble especially if you stay with 1:22.5! If you are thinking of going larger then I would broaden the outer S curve into a grand sweeping 20ft. dia. curve. It _will_ save you headaches later! For visual diversity you can then add rocks or vegetation between the two lines.


----------



## rpc7271 (Jan 2, 2008)

You have to decide on just what type of operation you want. In the second plan you can put 2 trains our running and leave them alone and just watch the trains if you want to. (Great for open houses). In the first plan if you run 2 (or more) trains you have to actually operate them. In the first plan I would add at least one more passing siding somewhere unless you want to double track the whole thing. Ppace the passing siding where you don't plan on bridges so you don't have to buy extra bridges to save money.


----------



## reeveha (Jan 2, 2008)

That's why I'm leaning towards#2. Since this is only taking up a portion of the house yard (have total of 10 acres, and the house yard is around 3) it does allow me to expand as well. I like the idea of elevating the the inner circle to give it some more character. The wifey wants to use the small center area as a sitting area, that elevating the inner track might just nix that plan.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

One thing I read long ago in Model Railroader was to try to make a layout that could be 2 independent loops, and then "connected" into a single longer "twice around" layout. I always thought that was a great idea. 

Regards, Greg


----------

