New layout plans.

[ScrewySqrl]

Well, luckily I'm not really that thin-skinned    (I read it initially as aimed at my posting frequency, which was off base.  My own statement was not intended that serious either  !)  We'll label it derp all around and call it a day 

Before I give up on the two level layout, how about this?



Green: either 2.5% grade  which gets a 1.875" rise. effective 1.625" under the 1/4" foam base. No autoracks, two-level passenger cars, or double stacks, but they'd look terrible on 9.75" curves, anyway! or 3% curve (gets 2.25" rise and everything fits with 2" under the 1/4" foam top base. but at a very steep grade.

White: tunnels. a lot of peak-a-boo tunnels here which should be interesting

Grey, visible lvl 0 track.

Blue: Yard. Its a 'supernook' of sorts, the stubs hold 7, 4 and 4 cars each (30.5", 17" 17"). I will add 1 short (2.5") to the long stub, and 2 full tracks to the short stubs making an 8-5-5 supernook. (33", 22", 22"), with a 28" yard lead.  and yes, 7 or 8 cars is probably the max effective train length, so it will work.

Orange: Industry sidings.  two sidings at the top level, and either 3 sidings, or two sidings and a shunting tail at the lower level.  might work best as only 4 industries, and 2 cars per train built. to each industry.

Yellow: industry runaround track.

Purple: interchange track/staging track.  Interchange could stay as shown, or turn somewhere off the right edge and link to cassette staging

Of note: No switch i more than 20" from the edge, max reach in the yard for uncoupling  is 27" (and I can stand up to uncouple if needed, making that reach almost trivial as the layout will be at 34-36" max (waist high on standing,  mid chest high when seated).

I think there is plenty of room for scenery, especially as I lean toward Urban scenery

[Kisatchie]

I prefer the two-door version!


Hmm... there Kiz goes,
throwing a (lowly) monkey
wrench into the discussion...

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Still too much track by a factor of two.

[ScrewySqrl]

Still too much track by a factor of two.

Ed:
I'm half-tempted to post a pair of straight lines down the middle from top to bottom, just to see if you say I need less track 

 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Lol, that might work out...

[Dave V]

Ed:
I'm half-tempted to post a pair of straight lines down the middle from top to bottom, just to see if you say I need less track 

 

It depends on what you're after for effect.  N scale's primary advantage is that you can get more (realistic) railroading in the same space than you can in a larger scale.  However, that only works successfully if you avoid the temptation to stuff that space with track.  Can you do it?  Sure!  Should you?  Depends...  That last plan reminds me of some of the Lionel layouts I might see at a train show or at the National Toy Train Museum at Strasburg, PA.  That's not meant as an insult at all...just to point out that the track arrangement you have doesn't have flow quite like that of a real railroad.  For example...the industry siding on the left.  At best you can get a single loco and one car past the switch.  Everything is very rigid and geometric.

My first N scale layout was a double loop on a door and it was problematic.  Curves were too sharp and grades too steep, and in the end it just looked strange to see the same train pass through the same scene at two levels.  You might find that here in Colorado on the narrow gauge but it wasn't something you would have seen on the Pennsy mainline.

Just my two cents.  I know you want to get a lot of running out of a small space, but really, unless you're doing a compact industrial layout, less is often more.

[Bsklarski]

Your going to have even steeper grades if you take into account the transitions. I would do away with grades all together. Small layouts are not good for grades.

[ScrewySqrl]

alright.
Here is the previous layout without the industry sidings:



where would you suggest putting industry sidings?

[MichaelWinicki]

I'd can the folded dogbone, and go with a simply oval with some sort of scenic divide down the center.  One side would be the yard.  The other side a village with industrial trackage. 

[eric220]

I wasn't familiar with the inglenook switching puzzle, so I went and looked it up. It's an interesting concept. I think your basic problem with it is trying to integrate it as the classification yard on the layout. It would do much better as an industry, or perhaps an interchange yard.

[Bsklarski]

What MichaelWinicki said. When you take the reverse loops out, you really have the same length of fun as a loop. Your going to hate the heavy grades and tight radius. All that friction on the wheels will cause drag and limit the train size even more. This latest plan has no lead and no room for anything but a small yard again. What about retaining this size for the layout and making a small extension for the yard?

[Dave V]

I'd can the folded dogbone, and go with a simply oval with some sort of scenic divide down the center.  One side would be the yard.  The other side a village with industrial trackage.

This.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

This was a great track plan.

[ScrewySqrl]

ok.  starting over, with some inspiration of a layout over on nScale.net.

here's the basic trackplan with no passing sidings.



oh lord, I can hear you say now, another folded dogbone!  However, a simple oval just going around the edges is just something I do not want at all. Not-An-Oval s a MUST for me.  even my 'Little Peanut' line was a very short dogbone.


the back is a 2% grade to 2" rise (~101 inches).  Ill use the Woodland  Scenics risers, simple enough)

green=on elevation, red-upper level, white: under bridge (or I might make a very short tunnel there on the left)

Here's how it is adding some passing sidings.



We have room for industries inside the loops in the right upper level  and in the upper center.  the bottom looks like it can became a huge yard

And so I added some industries, modifying the passing sidings.  I started by roughly sketching in the Woodland Scenics 2% grade riser, 2-inch flat risers, and the 2" tall cutout of foam.  The first thing that occured on looking at it was the triangle made by the join of the two inch risers begged for an industry, so I started there, trimmed that very long passing siding to make a runaround with a second industry coming off of it.

Rather than one huge industry, I made two medium sized ones on the inside loop on the right, upper level -(I didn't see a way to give a huge industry the spurs it deserved) then added one more inside the town, for a total of five, the along curve off the right side behind the elevation was changed from a yard lead into an interchange/staging, including a link to future expansion

I iitially tried to make a huge through yard but decided to instead populate it with engine facilities and a more clearly demarcated a/d track.  With the through yard, I'd stiil need a yard lead (the remnants of which are the long interchange track), and it looked cluttered, even to me! So I returned to my 'supernook' yard, and had plenty of room left for the engine facility and caboose track.  The through yard looked like too much yard for the layout



This at least looks more logical, even though I KNOW Ed will say I need about 75% less track  

[ScrewySqrl]

BTW, I took a tour of my new house yesterday, ad there is a potential problem with two doors in the corner of the garage: 
one wall has the electrical breakers. not a killer, but it sits such that a reasonable height layout (even my seated one) would possibly block the breaker box,  the Hot water heater is on the other wall about two feet in from the corner.  The OTHER corner has an exterior door that opens into the garage and the other side, of course, has the actual garage door.  there isn't much room for much more than a single door there anyway.  Pulling it away from the wall would block the car

Sooo. the two door plan, for now, must be scrapped.