Track Planning

[DanMacK]

At some point in the last few months I figured out how to get XtrakCAD to do what I want it to.

12" radius, Peco medium turnouts:

The big ones are cool I'm rather partial to this one actually.  Very "branchline" in scope

[Sir Madog]

I am into model railroading for nearly 48 years, starting out with a Marklin starter set given to me on Christmas 1963. Since then, I have been dreaming ao a big layout, with sweeping curves, rolling hills, big yards and stations, lots of tunnels and bridges. Never had the chance to build such an empire - for the lack of space, funds, and time. Now, as an old fart of 55, I feel lucky that I´d never even came close to starting such a venue.

Over the years, I have developed many a track plan, most of them in the classic "spaghetti bowl" design, where trains go nowhere, but around a scenery, which acts as a filler of the little space left between all those tracks. I have seen some very nice layouts following that philosophy, but those with a striking touch of realism, go down a different route.

For some years, I have been studying the various layout philosophies you´ll find in the world. Here are my observations:

Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland (Martijn, correct me, if I am wrong): mainly rectangular roundy-rounders of the spaghetti-bowl design, the bigger ones with a hidden staging yard, usually one level below.

France, UK: Small, layouts, highly detailed, concentrating on a singular theme. Mainly display character, often shown at train shows. Main theme is terminus to fiddle yard.

USA.: The classic 4 by 8 roundy-rounder still dominates the scene, in spite of what the mags try to tell us.

Japan: Tiny layouts, mainly just a circle or an oval, but loaded with detail.

Seems, as if we can´t get rid of the roundy-rounders!

So how to make something nice out of it?

There is an easy answer to it: Divide the layout into different scenes and separate the from each other by using scenic dividers!

A picture tells you more than a thousand word, so here is a picture of what I mean:



This is a layout I have developed out of a project layout published in Model Railroader. The layout actually has two faces - one with a spectacular mountain scenery, and one displaying an urban scene with a yard, station and an intermodal facility. Of course, you´ll need access to both sides of the layout, if you want to go down that way.

Some more examples:





Just some food for thought!

[The_Ghan]

I love the last layout.  Flip the station horizontally so that the terminating platforms enter from the right and you almost have Kofu Station in Yamanashi-ken ... where I went to school.

Cheers

The_Ghan

[Mr Frosty]

Some interesting observations and to some extent, I must agree with them. I am definitely not a fan of spaghetti bowl roundy roundies. Also trains need to go somewhere, which usually means 2 stations or more. I am currently trying to design a layout to fit within my limited available space. So far, I must have re-drawn my plan 7 or 8 times making minor changes each time, but slowly getting to the stage where I am happy with the design and operational capabilities. I shall reveal all when I am fully happy.

[Webskipper]

I changed my design many times only to use the original simple design with a twist.

On the passings, I added extra switches to add spurs so that I can park a full train.

The spurs are just an extension of the passing not a short dead end track.

[Mudkip Orange]

USA.: The classic 4 by 8 roundy-rounder still dominates the scene, in spite of what the mags try to tell us.

Almost all of us are space-constrained, and most of us are time-constrained. The spaghetti bowl is the logical outgrowth... pack as much variation into a given space as possible.

Alas, I think the magazines' emphasis on shelf layouts and the idea that "trains should only go through the same scene once" pushes people who might be better served with spaghetti into a simple roundy-round instead. MR in particular does all these fantastic basement empires and then they run a "layout you can build" which is just an oval with a passing siding and a few spurs.

101 track plans is still in production, but I haven't seen any new plans that pack the same amount of track in as those. And a lot's changed in the interim. Most of the 101 plans were designed around steam operations, so there is an emphasis on reversing loops and provision for roundhouses and turntables. In the diesel era these are completely unnecessary. Also it would be nice to see spaghetti plans incorporation staging and/or fiddle yards.

Of the three plans you posted I definitely like the middle one the best, because the continuous-run base of the layout is a twicearound, whereas the other two are just ovals. I do very much like the station layout of the bottom plan though.

[westfalen]

I can visualise the station in the bottom plan built as a three module set of double length T-TRAK modules. It needs the left crossover moved to allow access from the top mainline into the terminating platforms but that's a minor alteration.

[Sir Madog]

Track planning for tight spaces is an issue that, in my opinion, is not very well covered in the hobby publications. Either the layouts are too simple, i.e. that oval with a passing siding and some spurs, or they are too complex, loaded with track that only serves the purpose to lengthen the run until the train appears at the same station again, leaving the scenery looking like a Swiss cheese.

I have yet failed to identify my own ultimate design, that´s why I opted for building mini-modules. I have to admit, that I very much liked David K. Smith´s James River Branch layout, which is basically just a simple loop. I have amended the design to incorporate a passing siding and, of course, moved the setting to Japan.



A nice little display layout, but certainly some task to build. 2 helices are not an easy feat.



The layout´s attraction is the breathtaking scenery.

[Mudkip Orange]

The thought occurred to me that I can use XTrakCAD for Unitrack plans, too.

Here's an old-style Kato plan (e.g., not using any double track pieces)

[Nick_Burman]

The thought occurred to me that I can use XTrakCAD for Unitrack plans, too.

Here's an old-style Kato plan (e.g., not using any double track pieces)

Looks like the "Granite Gorge & Northern" track plan from one of the Atlas books...

Cheers NB

[Mudkip Orange]

Yup. I spent quite a bit of time reverse-engineering that track plan (there's two variants on the previous page of this thread), at this point the angles seem "natural" to me...

[Mudkip Orange]

First attempt at a plan using Atlas Code 55...

[Mudkip Orange]

Here's another Peco code 80 turnouts / Atlas code 80 crossovers plan I did awhile back.

[Mudkip Orange]

Some more Kato, this time for 3x5, with doubletrack pieces.



(XTC doesn't have the 22.5-degree runoff pieces for the 282/315 curves yet, so they don't shown on this one).

[The_Ghan]

That last one is very seductive.

Cheers

The_Ghan

[Mudkip Orange]

Thrice around in a 3x5. R282 minimum, except for some R249's for the spur tracks in the middle.

[Mudkip Orange]

So I noticed last night that MB Klein has the new tight-radius Kato curve pieces in stock.

Here's a table layout using those pieces, as well as the new platform expansion S-curve set. (Neither of these are in the XTrakCAD library, so I'm using R481's and S62's to represent the S-curve, and flextrack to represent the R150s and R183s.)

Since this thread started, Ikea has discontinued the MIKAEL desk; the VIKA AMON modular tabletop/leg system is its replacement. This plan is based on a 75x150 (29"x59") tabletop and a 60x100 (24"x39") tabletop put together: