CN Oxford Subdivision (Layout Plan)

H

Hoss

Member
Nov 10, 2003
189
0
16
47
TEXAS
Visit site
Like someone else said...the only problem with a reversing loop is that you really have to have two of them. Once a train goes through the reversing loop and is going the other way it then has no way to turn around and go back in it's original direction.

I had reversing loops in the track plan I'm working on and opted to take them out. For one thing I will almost always be running multi unit consists....tail to tail....so I can easily pull the train into a siding and run the engines around to the other end if I want to change directions. But, I'm also not afraid to run an engine backwards pulling a train if I don't have an MU consist...which I've seen many times on railroads.

If you can't fit two reversing loops in, I'd recommend taking them out completely to give you more room for scenery. :)
 
A

Agatheron

Member
Nov 8, 2003
317
0
16
54
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Visit site
Ah, the many traps of a newbie. Hoss, I didn't even realize the pitfall of my own reversing loop... Ooops :D

I picked up "Small Railroads you can build" today.... the N-Scale mohawk division is a very simple track plan, and yet can offer a fair bit. I might want to add a bit for some switching, but it doesn't have a reversing loop at all... I guess I continue to struggle with keeping it simple, and yet having it interesting enough to learn the basics of switching and the like... PLUS not having turns that are too tight ;)

Back to the drawing board :)
 
C

Cinnibar

Member
Nov 2, 2003
202
0
16
79
El Paso, TX
Visit site
Your layout

I’d like to offer a slightly different approach than what I’ve seen as this interesting thread develops. Track planning is fun but, to my way of thinking anyway, running trains is even more fun. Over the years there have been reams of articles and books that suggest a sequential approach to building a layout. A book like “An HO Layout That Grows” is a good example. As you have discovered you can only accomplish so much in the space you have and anyway you look at it the “outside oval” is going to be your mainline. The following lists an approach you may want to try, I have done this and it can be fun and satisfying :

1. You have developed several track plans, all with basically that same outside oval – keep them.
2. Buy your Flex track and a few of the switches that you are pretty sure will wind up in that oval.
3. Lay the roadbed and oval and run some trains!
4. As funds permit you can cut into that oval anywhere you want and add your sidings, cross-overs and the inside oval.
5. Pick a corner or space that you are pretty sure will be trackless and play around with some scenery, even if you decide later you need to put track there, you can always rip out the scenery.
6. After you lay that outside oval you will be gaining experience and understanding of what you really want or need to make operation more fun. You will find a balance between operational fun and the practicality of what works in the space you have.
7. Keep in mind you don’t have to build a control panel until you’ve finalized your plan, just use Atlas Selectors, Connectors and such, that way nothing at the panel end of your wiring is soldered.
8. I’d bet you will be “tweaking” that outside oval for awhile to get derailment free running. Filing switch points, rail joints, frogs and such. That outside oval could teach you a bunch and let you avoid mistakes as you progress to the inside oval, your yards and interchanges.
9. You could even ballast part of it and find out how that all works around switches and avoid messing up a bunch of those.
10. Above all, while you are doing all of this you can run a train once and awhile to remember why you are doing all of this.

None of the above are my ideas but they ARE a proven approach to building a layout. Lay that oval with a few switches or even just one and run your SD and VIA. That’s my suggestion.


;)
 
A

Agatheron

Member
Nov 8, 2003
317
0
16
54
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Visit site
I almost have enough track now to do the inside oval on one of these track plans listed above. I've been thinking of doing precisely as you say. The space for my layout in the basement isn't quite freed up, and won't be until the new year. However, I figure a low-end DC power supply and a kitchen table will let me get to that sooner rather than later ;)

I've been seriously considering the "layout that grows" concept for this one as my first try. As I said, I even picked up a copy of the "Small Railroads you can Build" for more grist for the mill. There is the "N-Scale Railroad that Grows" book out there, but the space considerations for it are different than what I have available.

I was pricing out hollow-core doors, and determining that I'd be using the pink styrofoam as my base... likely the 300 density rather than the 200. A bit more rigid, and just as "sculptable" with a hot knife...
 
S

screwysquirrel

Member
Jun 30, 2003
678
0
16
54
Raleigh, NC
Visit site
Originally posted by Agatheron
[B

I was pricing out hollow-core doors, and determining that I'd be using the pink styrofoam as my base... likely the 300 density rather than the 200. A bit more rigid, and just as "sculptable" with a hot knife... [/B]
Click to expand...



Before you give up the door, call around and ask if theyhave any 'scratch and dent' doors they can sell you at a discount, i got mine for only $10
 
A

Agatheron

Member
Nov 8, 2003
317
0
16
54
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Visit site
Thanks... I've actually bookmarked this site and have found it quite useful... I think he uses RTS as well... Some of the plans actively use the narrower 9 3/4" turns, which is where I run into some of my own snags :)

I was thinking I'd try to redraw the above plan using the Atlas code 55 track instead, given the variety that the c55 track appears to have over the code 80... Although from what I understand, Peco code 55 is perhaps the better choice when it comes to actually buying stuff ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom