# Creatively brain dead :(



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

Morning all,

I have a frustrating problem - my track plan!

My creative abilities when it comes to doing a track plan are fairly limited and anything but creative; as such, I was wondering if anyone here could give my current "plan" a bit of a lift, dd some interest to it or, in a nut shell, give it some life.

This is what I have at the moment:



I am using LGB Brass sectional track and have used their R3/22.5 curves which, I believe if used in a circle, give me an 8' diameter. I can go to a 10' diameter with some comfort I think, BUT the LGB R5/15 (?) curves are way too big for the area I have. As such, I am not die hard on using only LGB track.

I am not big on point to point layouts either, as I prefer to set and forget so to speak so am looking for something that will allow me to run a couple of trains and for it to be a little more "involved" than just an oval of sorts.

Even though there is room in between the two "ends" that room cannot be used for the layout; however I can "fudge" a little more space on the right hand side.

Finally, this is a DC layout at the moment but has the potential to become a DCC one. Should also mention that I am not the most competent person when it comes to electrics/wiring of DCC.

All and any suggestions will be more than welcome.


----------



## Sjoc78 (Jan 25, 2014)

Well the simple thing would be add a parallel loop or some passing tracks. Maybe an elevated loop within one of the dog bone ends.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Looks pretty good to me for track layout.

You might Double track the long straightaway across the top and bring the two sides of the circle closer together along that straightaway to make it look like triple track for a short section.

Add some visual obstructions (mountains, buildings, forest, etc.) in some areas so the train disappears from view depending on where the viewer is standing.


Then give the RR a purpose...

A freight RR needs to run between source of raw materials (mine or sea port) in the upper right corner with a stub track to it there... shorten the loop and have the stub track(s) on the outer edge. Then a town in the upper left corner and a factory in the lower left corner with a rail yard between them.

A passenger RR might have a ski resort in the upper right and the city on the left.


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

You could add 2 switches to each end making 2 loops and when DCC powered you can switch trains between circles. Plus with DCC, have a crossover in the middle in order to reverse train travel.


----------



## Mike Toney (Feb 25, 2009)

I agree, that looks good for a basic plan. Now its time to think about a passing siding, some stub sidings for industies if you want to do more than watch a train chase its tail. Mine started out like yours, only smaller due to space size. I did stick with 100% LGB track as that is my own personal preferance for track. My curves are tighter than yours with a mix of R1 and R2 curves. But at the time all I modeled was European meter gauge so that was fine. I mix in a bit of American with my DRGW #50 switcher. I have the large Beck's Brewery that is my main industry. The brewery has 2 sidings, one holds 2 of the LGB 2 axle European or 1 4 axle American reefer and is worked thru the depot team track via a switch back. The second siding comes into the rear of the brewery complex and is set up for 3 Euro or 2 American grain hauling box cars providing supplies for the brewery. I have plans for atleast 1 more siding to a different industry in the future. All of my engines have onboard batteries and are controled with the old Keithco Locolinc RC system. While its an older 75mhz based setup, with most all the other guys on 2.4ghz, and for the price I got it for, it serves me well. Good luck with your plan, I think your doing just fine. Mike


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Thats a nice space!
my space is close to the same size..this is the railroad I am building, its about 45' by 20'










I dont have any track down yet..ive been working on the retaining wall..
grid squares are 10 feet.
Im going to have two loops, both are level (no grades at all on my railroad, because I want to run live steam.) The inner red loop is 9" to 12" higher than the outer loop.

Do you want to have grades/hills? or no?
grades add interest, but also add operational difficulties..
trains run better on level track, and you can run longer trains on level track, but lots of people like hills because you then can have over/unders, bridges and tunnels, on the same "mainline" track.

Delete that S-curve, that's an operational headache waiting to happen. dont make S-curves unless they are unavoidable.

One design I really like, but didnt use because I need my loops to be level, is the "folded dogbone", it makes for an interesting mainline, much more interesting than just a flat oval:









In the drawing above, note that the two tunnel portals in the lower-left are at different levels..
the bottom tunnel is at "ground level" while the tunnel right above it is at "top level"..
9" to 12" higher..

another view of a folded dogbone:









you could add a 90 degree bend to make it go around your corner:









here is another idea of mine, which could be interesting in your space..I flipped it to make it match your drawing:










I like the idea of *not* filling up the whole space with track..and having the open lawn space in the middle..because it then makes individual "scenes" on either end, with a thin mainline between them, 
and..maintenance and access is a concern! just because you have a big space, doesn't mean its necessary to completely fill it up with track and buildings..sometimes "less is more"...

You have a nice space..you could at least have two loops, to run two trains at the same time..maybe three, but that might be overkill..

Two important "rules of thumb" to keep in mind when track planning:
1. keep the curves as WIDE as you possibly can..
Dont put an 8-foot diameter curve where a 20-foot diameter curve would fit..

2. keep the grades as low as you possibly can..
if you are going to have a track go "up and over" you need to start the rise as far back as you can..you want to keep the grade to 2% or less..
1% grade = 1 inch rise in 100 inches.
2% grade = 2 inch rise in 100 inches.

Scot


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Might consider adding a second level, mountains, a big trestle on one end.... Here's a rough example,










But, accessibility issues arise. Is the top horizontal border a fence? 

As for grades, if the main line is all flat, the example above (between the switch at lower left and the one at the loop) would be about 2.2%, resulting in a 14" track separation at the crossovers. 

Cliff


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

The basic plan is fine. If you can't use the center area, I would put an additional loop at each side within what you have, and interconnect them with the outter loop so you can take a train anywhere.

At the interconnection points, I would put spurs/sidings. Then the two loops could serve as separate industries and the outter loop could interconnet them. I would also do a passing siding along the mainline so you could park/alternate trains.

You could do continual running of three trains on the loops (with one or multiple power packs) for open houses/demo, but could do operations if that ever struck your fancy. When in "continual mode," the sidings serve as places to display your "efforts." "Block" it right and add a reverser and you can even have trains going back and forth on the sidings.

My track plan also uses 8-10 foot diameter curves and turnouts in an area ~20' x 52' (with a 10' x 15' "dog leg") and those are the curves that will work with your dimensions and allow for _most_ anything.

You've seen the video of the _Tortoise & Lizard Bash_ and on _three Train Engineers_, we can run _eight trains_ (three point-to-point and five on the three interconnected loops..., _and the aerial tram_. This is possible because of the way the track is "blocked" and sidings are "protected" with diodes to keep the trains from running past the ends of where they are supposed to run.


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

I'd try to increase the radius of your curves, and make more flowing curves where possible.

For instance, perhaps keep the 8 foot diameter curve at the lower left adjacent to the 45 degree boundary, but use 15 foot diameter in the upper left corner and the entirety of the right side loop.

If you want multiple train operation while you sit back and watch, I'd go with dual track or two independent loops at different elevation.


----------



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

WOW! Thanks all for your ideas and diagrams - the diagrams make it much more understandable to me. It seems as though your all pretty much saying the same or similar thing, if I interpret it all correctly. 

I probably should have explained that the layout is pretty much "flat" at present but I do want hills/mountains, at least one tunnel and already have 3 bridges planned in it. Two of them cross my "drainage" stream. 

I like the idea of a second level and definitely a second track - which I have already been playing with as an inner track for the left hand side:



I have also been giving thought to what Semper Vaporo said about the railway having a purpose. I am currently running a very short freight train (diesel) but am getting a Piko Mogul this Wednesday and want it to pull passenger cars. So, I will be running both freight and passenger in very different era's. I know, not very realistic, but I will be running the trains separate to each other anyway for the moment.

So with that in mind, I was thinking about a "Town" environment for the left side of the layout and some sort of "Industry" for the right side with an "empty" area through the center section. Does that make sense?

Lastly, the original schematic is a little deceptive - where the two tracks come together across the top middle section i close and no room for a third track through there. There could be room for a third track on the inside of the section though - perhaps.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Looking good. The long passing siding could be set up with a loop. That way you could park a train or run it.

Chuck


----------



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

Chuck,

Thank you, I think it is an improvement albeit a small one. How or where would you put a loop?


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Continue the passing siding. As the drawing is, the passing siding is about 2/3s of a loop. Two more switches and you have a loop and a passing siding.

Chuck


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Like this:










Now you have a passing siding for the "main" loop, (the largest "outer" loop)..and you also have an independent "inner loop" so you could run two trains at the same time, one on each loop..if you are doing track power, there are no reverse loops in this plan (a good thing for track power)..you would need to create blocks though to electrically separate the two loops.

I think there is some redundant complication in that arrangement though..it could be simplified..I'll revisit it tomorrow.

Scot


----------



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

chuck n said:


> Continue the passing siding. As the drawing is, the passing siding is about 2/3s of a loop. Two more switches and you have a loop and a passing siding.
> 
> Chuck





Scottychaos said:


> Like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks guys and I like this a lot - far more to do than just an "oval so to speak". 

Scotty, If you say there could be redundant complications I believe you and look forward to the revisited thoughts.

Now, you mentioned creating blocks - I am assuming that I would need to insulate the "inner loop" from the "outer loop" right? That would mean using insulators on the diverging part of the switch I think ... am I even close?


----------



## Ironton (Jan 2, 2008)

My biggest suggestion would be to put a couple of spur tracks in the loops. Would give a place to park a couple of cars and a site for some industry.

You could put a passenger station on one of the straights and a spur to go behind the station as another thought.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

I was thinking of simplifying it like this:










operationally, its the same as the last plan, a train going in either direction can still enter or exit either loop, but its "cleaner"..
and you want to keep turnouts as accessible as possible, because 90% of derailments occur at turnouts!  on that previous plan, there was one turnout that was probably out of reach from the edge..

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

I dont know if you are planning yard tracks..but you could fit some like this:










Scot


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Scottychaos said:


> I was thinking of simplifying it like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a better plan and easier to implement. Stretch the "trapazoid" as long as feisable to make it easier to do "run around" movements as you can place more railcars between the turnoutsor park a short train there and be able to run around it.


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Lookin' nice.


----------



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

Thanks guys - appreciate all of the ideas and suggestions ... all I have to do now is make what you guys have put forward work - and that should be interesting


----------



## stevedenver (Jan 6, 2008)

late to the party

first and foremost
it really depends on how you like to operate, round and round, or switching etc.

I think the beauty of your original is its simplicity, which should mean low maintenance. a couple of sidings/switches do add a bit of 'realism' and vibe.

as for creativity, for me, its more about landscape, rocks, well placed small scenes, 
not a lionel-like 'spaghetti bowl' of track in the back yard. but that's just me. while entertaining to watch a gaggle of consists, and certainly exciting to those first seeing it, I actually prefer less action.

with respect, you might try to look at sidestreetbannerworks site, by marc "the garden rr mensch" horowitz (editor of garden rail). He has some rather good thoughts on overall approach and philosophy, the thrust is integration of the rr into the garden. another great example would be to see videos of the Tuscarora rr, by kevin strong, again a great example of integration and measured track work, which make for a miniature and plausible world.


----------



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

stevedenver said:


> late to the party
> 
> first and foremost
> it really depends on how you like to operate, round and round, or switching etc.
> ...


Steven,

Thank you for your thoughts and I couldn't agree more with them. I am a round and round modeler and agree that it is the scenery that can make or break a layout - regardless of it's size or scale.

I have been doing some work to the layout and physical design of the track plan. One of the things I wanted was a tunnel and now, I think, I have one.

What do you think?






















Now I just have to work on making sure it stays this way. Needless to say, the gradients still need to be refined but I think I a much better and more interesting plan.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Looking good!  what's your grade work out to?
And! You didn't tell us you also have a 1:1 scale train set in your back yard! 
Which line is that?
Scot


----------



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

Scottychaos said:


> Looking good!  what's your grade work out to?
> And! You didn't tell us you also have a 1:1 scale train set in your back yard!
> Which line is that?
> Scot


Scot,

At the moment the grade is just there as an indicator; however, I am looking as between a 2.5% and a 3.0% grade on both the approach and departure side of the "over pass", which will have a tunnel beneath it.

I think I will have to stay at a 3.0% grade running back to where the "curvy bit" used to be if I want to keep the "double track" pretty much on the flat. Going the other way, I could cut the grade down to probably a 1.5% if I tried hard enough.

Now I want to look at the other end of the layout and do something down there as well. Initially I was thinking a logging industry or similar, but am unsure if I have the room to do that and make it look reasonable.

Yep, have a 1:1 in the back yard as well. That is the old Conrail Line, now Norfolk Southern which I was wanting to "copy" and will be so far as diesel is concerned. I'm not sure what line it was prior to Conrail and, to be honest, aren't real sure where it goes or comes from. I know it heads up toward Rochester and down through Corning/Elmira. From there I am at a loss though.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Wombat,
your big trainset is the historic "Southern Tier Main", one of the oldest mainlines in the USA.

http://www.erierailroad.org/web_documents/centennial-book.pdf

First built through your yard about 1841, 175 years ago, and trains have been running on it every day since.
It took a decade for the line to be completed though..
The New York and Erie Railroad completed its mainline between New York City and Dunkirk NY in 1850, being the first railroad to connect the Eastern Seaboard with the Great Lakes.
It quickly also built a line to Buffalo, and on to Chicago.

Soon known as just "The Erie Railroad", the Erie would be a major contender in the North East for over 100 years..your tracks are the Erie Mainline:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5532/9132275511_15e0406c13_o.gif

Originally the Erie was built to 'wide gauge", 6-foot gauge! but it converted to standard gauge in the 1870's..
The pinnacle of Erie steam power was their Passenger Pacifics:










and for freight, the famous Erie Berkshires:










The Erie dieselized in the 1940's and 50's, and had some nice looking passenger trains, with a snazzy 2-tone green..(ALL these trains would have run right past your house!)










and the Erie freight scheme was yellow and black:










In 1960 the Erie merged with its long-time rival, the DL&W, Delaware Lackawanna & Western, (called "The Lackawanna" for short) and the merged system was given a new name, the Erie-Lackawanna. 

http://www.scrantonstation.com/scrantonlayout/design/images/1967 EL System Map-Large.gif

The EL adopted the DL&W paintscheme for passenger and freight diesels:



















The Hornell shops was a major Erie and EL facility..the Erie built steam engines there at one time..

The most famous DL&W and EL passenger train was the passenger train named "The Phoebe Snow"
(which ran through your yard from 1963 to 1966, before that it ran on the DL&W main)










The EL years were 1960 to 1976.
Sadly the EL was a victim of the times, the same as most other North-East railroads, and she was folded into the new Conrail system on April 1, 1976. Conrail would then last 23 years, 1976 to 1999.

I was a teenage railfan over in Waverly NY, on the same "Southern Tier main" during the 1980's..Conrail was my hometown railroad during those years:










all the Conrail trains I photographed through Waverly went to, or from, your tracks in Canisteo.

Originally the line was simply "The Erie mainline", then "The Erie-Lackawanna mainline"
but after Conrail in 1976, it was no longer *the* mainline of Conrail, it was just *a* mainline..
Conrail really had two 'mainlines"..the former New York Central mainline across upstate NY, and the former PRR mainline across Pennsylvania..
The former Erie main became more of a "secondary route" and was first given the name "Southern Tier Main" by Conrail in the late 70's..the name stuck, and the line is still referred to as "the Southern Tier main" today..

then, in 1999, a Fourth railroad took over the line. Conrail was sold and split up, half went to CSX, and half to Norfolk Southern..
today, as you know, your hometown railroad is part of the massive Norfolk Southern system:

http://www.lexingtoncountyusa.com/assets/images/norfolk-southern-map.jpg










(that's the "Cannisteo River Valley", a famous rail photo location since forever..)

So your line has has been owned and operated by four major railroads during its history:

Erie Railroad - 1840's to 1960, almost 120 years. (and the only railroad on this line during the steam era)
Erie-Lackawanna - 1960 to 1976, sixteen years.
Conrail - 1976 to 1999, twenty three years.
Norfolk Southern - 1999 to present, sixteen years and counting.

the Delaware & Hudson (D&H), then its successor Canadian Pacific, also had traffic rights on the line and ran their own trains on it from 1976 until only a few years ago.
During the 1970's, 80's and 90's D&H, Guilford, Susquehanna and CP power was common on this line between Binghamton and Buffalo, even though they didnt own it.
still get some CP Red power running through occasionally today, a remnant of this arrangement.

The line splits at Hornell, the "Southern Tier Main" runs up to Buffalo..(the 'southern Tier main" today is the NS line between Buffalo and Binghamton)

The old Erie main west out of Hornell is no longer a "through route" to chicago..conrail abandoned and tore up chunks of it..today the line between Hornell and Olean, and west to Meadville PA,
is operated by the Western NY and Pennsylvania, a subsiderary of the Livonia Avon and Lakeville..Western NY state is one of the best places in the world to find operating Alcos, its an Alco Mecca, and Hornell is part of it:










Here is a line map I made a few years ago, showing the current state of railroads in the area..
(things are mostly still the same now..the big recent change is that NS is going to take over the former CP (original D&H) north and south of Binghamton.)
you are on the line between Hornell and Corning:










The line was a double-track line for most of its history..
Conrail began to single-track it in the 1990's, and NS finished the job over the past 5 to 10 years..
Its now a single track line from Buffalo to Binghamton, with passing sidings (which still using both ancestral tracks) strategically placed.

The famous Letchworth Bridge, 140 years old, is in the process of being replaced right now:










NS is going to remove the old bridge and build a new one..which will improve your 'southern Tier main" and allow NS to use it as its main gateway into New England, to compete with CSX in the Boston and New England market..

NS trains will run from Chicago and the midwest, to Buffalo, then onto your Southern Tier main, through Canisteo, to Corning, Elmira and Binghamton..then up the former D&H from Binghamton to Albany, then into New England..the line still lives! 


Scot


----------



## stevedenver (Jan 6, 2008)

wombat, its beautiful!

do I see Conrail mainline on gray ballast in these pics? very cool if this is the case-

love the sheer scale,
its really large imho-big enough not to be able take it all in with a single glance.

not to mention the lovely NY greenery-haven't seen that since my kid left Vassar a few years back-no more visits.


I think you will have an amazing layout with time and plants.that is of course should your back hold out. looks like a lot of work and material to come.

then, with single malt in hand and a good sweater come fall, you, like me, can watch em go round and make believe in your mind


----------



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

Scottychaos said:


> Wombat,
> your big trainset is the historic "Southern Tier Main", one of the oldest mainlines in the USA.
> 
> http://www.erierailroad.org/web_documents/centennial-book.pdf
> ...


 Darn Scot - that is a lot of info - thank you, most of which I did not know, especially it being one of the oldest mainlines in the US.

I haven't fully read your post as yet BUT recognize a lot of the photo's and can't help thinking the one taken with the Canisteo River is just up the road from me ... maybe I am wrong.

Thanks for such a detailed post - it is (and will be) very interesting.



stevedenver said:


> wombat, its beautiful!
> 
> do I see Conrail mainline on gray ballast in these pics? very cool if this is the case-
> 
> ...


Steven,

Thank you. Hopefully I can come close to replicating the New York Greenery on the layout. I think with all the advice I have been given regarding the landscaping I should come close.

I am pretty happy with the design as well and I think it leaves itself open for expansion in the future, should I consider it, and I most likely will.

Now I have changed things so much vertically, there is going to be a lot of material yet to come in, but I am in no rush now. I know the track work is okay and that both my engines run, although my little GP38-2 runs a lot better than my newly acquired Piko Mogul; for some reason it seams to almost stall at the far end where as the GP38 doesn't miss a beat. I am thinking that is due to the Mogul having sound as well as lights and needs more power, something the single track feed isn't providing that far away. As such, I think I am going to be putting in a lot more feeders, at least another 3 and see if that doesn't get the little Mogul up and running consistently and smoothly.

Lots of work to do yet, more dirt, more sub road bed, more ballasting and, of course, the wiring - the bain of my existence sadly.


----------



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

Thought I would post a video of the layout running the GP38-2 with a few pieces of rolling stock behind it. I have started working on the gradients and am yet to complete that task, as will be evident from the video.

https://vimeo.com/134273259


----------



## stevedenver (Jan 6, 2008)

i dont have any piko locos, but, from my reading, that may be the problem.

when you can, try an lgb loco in good condition. they seem to run no matter what, provided track connections are tight all around.

i doubt its a matter of power, but more IS better, generally.


----------



## wombat457 (Jul 15, 2015)

Steven,

I may have to try an LGB loco one day. When I bought the Piko, it was really the price that caught my eye more than anything. As said, when ever I decide to buy another engine, I will look at the LGB American Engines.

I also agree with you on the "more is better" train of thought when it comes to power feeders, Whether they "actually" do anything or not doesn't really matter to me - I regard them as "insurance" more than anything. Therefore, as of this afternoon, I have added an additional 7 feeders to the layout with a further 3 to be wired up. That will give me a feeder about every 14' on average and should be enough I think.

One thing I have considered, and don't really know if this is worth it or not, but having power to my switches - live frogs if you will. I know this is something that is considered the norm with HO DCC layouts and an option that does seem to improve the reliability of the HO switches; just not sure if the same would apply here or even how do do something like that.


----------

