ok guys sorry its been so long and thanks for all the kind complements about my layout
you like me you really like me,the mask/QUOTE] , but i had to rush into work lasdt night to fix one of my colleages mishaps with some gas...well anyway pagandw i finally got it revise and here it is , i added most of the things i could understand...anyway
i added a yard track and raised the hidden track and shortened the yard to make the grade about .5 pecent.i added a runaround track near the mine if you could tell me anything else i need,i didnt understand what you were talking about with the engine terminal.and i also dont know what to do about my mill if you could can you maybe revise or draw something so its easier for me to understand?thanks
Big Steel
I didn't mean to be hard on you. The point in my criticisms is that this a large layout by my standards. It will take several years and quite a bit of $$ and time to get to an operational state. I would not want you to be faced with tearing up the layout at that point because it doesn't do what you want it to.
This is a long response, but I don't really know how to condense it. I also recommend you have Andrew move this thread to the
Track Planning for the Future Forum. Read some of the other threads to assist your insight.
You have made some significant improvements in the track plan. The next step is to make a decent layout plan great. But first, let's take a step back and reconsider the plan in the light of YOUR vision. You have 3 primary scenes on the plan - the mill with yard in front, the mine, and the engine terminal.
Are these the scenes you most want to have on your layout? When you picture your layout in your mind at night or away from the plan, what are your favorite scenes? If the 3 I listed are not your top 3, then the layout needs re-thinking until it does better reflect your vision. When you walk into the room what do you want visitors to your layout to see first? Is that what they will see? To me, this is the difference between the great and other layouts. When I walk into a great layout, I readily see the story the owner wants me to see. I can grasp and understand his vision.
To share a vision, there must be believability and/or shared reference points. If it looks nothing like any prototype I have seen pictures of, or doesn't look like there's any reason for the track to be where it is, then I have a hard time identifying with the owner's vision. Same is true is almost any art form. If I see a painting of a harbor, there has to be something that reminds me of some harbors I have seen for the painting to communicate a message to me.
So think about how a stranger would enter and view your completed layout.
The catch I see in the scene presentation is that normally engine terminals are near the yards they serve. A train arrives in a yard, and the road engine is sent to the terminal for servicing. The yard switcher breaks up the train and makes a new one, and a serviced road engine(s) are brought out and attached to the new train.
Obviously, in full size life, railroads avoid breaking and making up trains as much as possible - it costs money to do it needlessly. But it has to be done sometime somewhere unless you have unit trains running from a single loading plant to a single receiving facility. True unit trains were rare until the '70s. And depending on era, a road engine would need servicing and perhaps a new crew after traveling a certain distance.
I strongly recommend John Armstrong's
Track Planning for Realistic Operation to get an idea of how prototype practices influence layout design. It's a re-read of many times for me. Others consider it the bible of good layout design.
If the layout at least reflects your priorities in terms of scenes presented, then I recommend reviewing the plan against the following criteria (I partially did this in my earlier critique).
Number of operators and control system: How many operators do you normally expect to have to operate the layout? How many trains can be operated simultaneously without interfering with each other too often? Do those numbers match? On your plan, 3 trains simultaneously is probably about the max, and at most one can be unattended running. The unattended train can be running loops on the main, while a train is servicing the mill/yard and another on the mine branch. But eventually the latter 2 will need access to the main as well.
Your plan will also work well in one train (one operator) mode. The single operator can operate the various trains in sequence as desired. From my perspective, it is not a layout that requires trains running everywhere constantly to be enjoyed, but it can support 2-3 trains and operators when desired easily.
Another comment in this area: wiring for DC control of more than 2 trains simultaneously is not trivial and requires planning and forethought. I recommend DCC from the beginning if you ever plan to operate 3 or more trains simultaneously.
Due to limited aisle spaces and a non-linear type plan, tethered walk-around control is going to be limited to the yard area. Walking through an operation reveals another problem with the engine terminal being on the other side of the layout from the yard. How are you going to control an engine you are taking from the yard to the engine terminal or vice versa. Because of the backdrop location and the duckunder, you are almost forcing yourself to have a wireless throttle for this task. Operation of the mine branch, OTOH, is probably going to take place from the central pit, and could be a throttle mounted in a control panel instead of hand-held.
Last thought in this category - In walking through controlling locomotives and trains along their logical routes, that duckunder is going to get a lot of use during operations. To reduce the number of model earthquakes, and accompanying derailments, bruises, and scrapes, I recommend you put your layout as high as you can deal with, and pad the under side of the duckunder.
Normally, I am dead set against duckunders, especially ones that are used during normal operations. The need to use it during operations pretty much precludes a swinging or hinged mechanism because of the time element.
Access for construction and maintenance: Your duckunder is pushing the layout higher to avoid becoming a pain in the neck (literally). The higher the layout, the shorter your reach for construction and maintenance.
The steel mill side has a 3ft reach to the backdrop. Unless you make the backdrop easily removable, the shorter reach from the octagon doesn't count. From the top of the octagon to the hidden main line and mining branch is also 3ft. The corner where at the backdrop is even further. Finally, I don't see enough room for the planned (but not shown) access pit in the upper left corner.
A 3ft reach is the max for a reasonably tall person on a low layout; 30" is often recommended as a maximum reach. I don't have any brilliant suggestions to resolve this issue with your current track plan, perhaps others can help here.
Length of longest normal train: you stated 8 2 bay hopper cars at 6" each, which is a total of 48". How long are the locomotives you will use to pull the train? Will you attach a caboose at the end? Add this all up in inches or cm to get your longest normal train length. Then measure your sidings and tracks to make sure they meet this minimum - it's at least as important as the minimum radius of your curves.
All passing sidings, staging yard tracks, yard switching lead, the yard arrival and/or departure track need to be this long to avoid creating operational bottlenecks. The longest yard track must be at least as long as the cars in the longest train.
Towns generally need to be separated by at least 1.5 times normal longest train lenght to avoid having the train appear in 2 towns at the same time.
Tail tracks on switchbacks must also be long enough to handle the expected train length using them.
In your case, is the run-around track on the mining branch long enough? Can it be shortened? How about the arrival/departure track? And last, how much clearance is left on the lower mill tracks after cars are spotted there for a train to access the upper mill buildings? Will the cars in the lower tracks have to be moved prior to servicing the upper mill buildings? If yes, is this an acceptable operating bottle-neck to you?
Grades and vertical clearances: How are grades used on the planned layout? Is the maximum grade compatible with the normal longest train? Was there room allowed for vertical transition curves in the grade calculations?
In your particular case, the critical grade is the mining branch. The addition of the run-around track on the branch complicates things because it needs to be level. If you let the main dip down from the cross-over at the 6ft point on the left side, as well as the mine branch climbing, you will have about a 3% grade on both tracks until you get to the mine branch run-around. This will be difficult to handle scenically with 3.5" vertical separation between the 2 tracks, and less than 2.5" horizontal separation. With the mining branch sitting a scant 3.5-4" above the main, there will be little room for you to get a hand in to fix anything on the main track - especially 3 ft away from your access point!
I recommend you shorten the mine branch runaround to the minimum needed for the train length on the branch, and push the runaround as close to the bridge as possible. This will give a gentler grade, and reduce the amount of mine branch track sitting directly on top of the main.
Where the main and the mine branch track separate the main will have to climb back to its normal level. This has to take place before the trunout for the passing siding on the far right side of the layout. Could be a steep grade.
Minimum radius: I have not checked what your minimum radius is, and what your longest planned cars and locomotives are.
The recommended minimum radius for problem-free operation is 3 times the length of your longest car or locomotive. Many model railroaders violate this rule, and it can be broken. But you should understand the consequences of doing so.
Operation at 2.5 times longest car length is usually reliable. Long trains may tend to stringline on curves, and problems between cars of greatly different length may appear. Diaphrams on passenger cars may not match up, and certain models may have to have some underbody detail removed to allow trucks to swivel sufficiently. Couplers may not line up on curves.
Operation at 2 times longest car length can be done, but usually requires truck-mounted or special couplers to succeed. Modified underbodies are often required. Some failures should be expected where a piece will not work on this sharp a curve without extensive modification.
Less than 2 times longest car length requires testing of each piece.
If you are planning passenger car operations, your curves are probably too sharp as per the above guidelines.
Vertical and horizontal separation for scenery: Normally, Nature does not allow earth to stay in place at vertical angles greater than 30 degrees. I arbitrarily tighten that to 45 degrees for my standard. This means that for 2 somewhat parallel tracks at different elevations, the minimum horizontal separation equals the vertical separation plus 2 inches (in HO). Anything closer than that is going to require cliffs, walls, or retaining walls as a scenic treatment.
The other aspect to watch is where the closer track is higher than the track further away. One can easily get into situations where the further away lower track cannot be seen, admired, or reached to be maintained. This situation can also happen with tall structures placed in front of track. Making a 3-D mockup or drawing vertical cross sections in critical places can reveal these problems in the planning stage.
As discussed earlier, you will have problems where the mining branch is climbing while running parallel to the main. There is no room for any normal scenery slope until the vertical separation is great enough to put the main in a tunnel.
Another problem area will be where the main is climbing back up to level at the upper right corner of your plan. Although your shortened the yard tracks to avoid a tunnel situation, you still may have to build a retaining wall or similar here.
Throwing turnouts and uncoupling: Again, the desired methods have to be matched to track placement and proposed scenery.
If one is a "manual everything" with adjacent ground throws and coupler picks, then one must have all throws and uncoupling points within reach - and reach must not be hampered by scenery and structures. More than 2ft reach for uncoupling and turnout throwing becomes difficult. Trains running down a main in front of where one is trying to reach in is also a disaster waiting to happen (don't ask me how I learned this one!).
Using uncoupling ramps and switch machines or extended manual linkages introduces further complexity and cost into the layout. Uncoupling ramps require much closer tolerances for coupler mounting and operation than picks and skewers do. Also, trucks and car weights must be right to prevent accidental uncouplings, yet uncouple when desired. Electromagnets may be required on main lines.
Despite the negatives, I personally prefer remote uncoupling and turnout throws. The "hand of god" reaching into my layout is more distraction than I normally want to the visuals I have worked so hard on. But even with remote uncoupling and turnout throws, adequate sight lines to see which way the turnout is thrown, or to see whether the cars are spotted correctly over the uncoupling ramp or not, are still required.
In your case, the mill building construction and positioning is going to be critical for tracks going into the buildings so that you can see what you are doing. You wouldn't want to smash a car into the back end of the building, would you?
The above are just planning guidelines I and/or others have learned the hard way. Will following them cut down on track location possibilities (and likely the amount of track)? You better believe it! But these guidelines often mean the difference between a satisfying, buildable, and useable layout, albeit more limited, and a layout that gets torn down before completion because it just doesn't "work" for the owner/builder.
again, these are my thoughts, you make your choices