Twice Around Trackplan

Bruce has come up with some really good ideas and I think I am narrowing down to a basic loop that goers twice around the room. By moving the staging yards outside the room an in the garage side I get a little more space and can keep those scenically bare but functional and while the train room will be completely sceniced without any need to pure functionality. I think this is an excellent compromise. The staging yard will require a mole to set the trains in motion for the engineers in the other room, although they may be able to follow their trains into the room and then duck under into the center space for operations. I could do remoting switches and sensors but I'll cross that bridge much later.

Twice Around provides staging, continuous run, yard and all my desired elements

Bruce has done an amazing job fitting all my Givens and I think all the Druthers too in this track plan. Traffic flow is still East-West from Greensburg staging through Irwin, East McKeesport and then on west to Pittsburgh. The Herminie mine and interchange with P&LE are still there and of course, the Irwin Yard. I attempted to create a schematic diagram of the trackage but not sure if I got everything accurate.

Schematic of the Twice Around layout plan

I need to spend some more time considering this and identifying any problem areas for the operations. Who knows, maybe I'll be building some benchwork soon!

Back to single deck?

Bruce came up with a couple of good sketches for a two level track plan with a helix connecting the decks. I feel that they fit the maximum amount of both mainline and sidings possible. Although they both had merits, I think I preferred one over the other and here it is:

Bruce's multi-deck track plan

As I pointed out to Bruce, there are a couple of potential issues I would need to consider:

• While I like the double-ended offline staging, are the tracks long enough?
• Are the yard tracks in Irwin long enough? (On the old layout, most trains were 4-6 cars plus engine and caboose.)
• I am a little hesitant to tackle a reverse loop - requires an extra booster, special reverse loop circuit and an automated turnout control.
• And then there is the challenge of constructing the helix!

I just finished reading Tony Koester's Designing & Building Multi-Deck Model Railroads with the plan to optimize some of the design variables - deck height, spacing between decks, benchwork construction, etc. I had planned on the book convincing me that multi-deck was the right approach. After finishing the book, I have some doubts:

• Neither deck would be the right height. Likely I would have to use a step stool for some action on the upper deck and lean over to view some of the switching on the lower deck. 
• Likely the lower deck would be too low for my modeling desk to be under the layout. I have something temporary now at 48” and there is not enough room – and I think this is higher than the bottom deck would be.
• Helix - what can I say, this intimidates me!
• Double the layout construction - meaning more time commitment before I can get trains running. I could complete the benchwork and trackwork on the lower level and then proceed to the upper but not sure what problems that creates.
• Not convinced the gain is worth the pain - double the mainline doubles but 20% of it will be hidden in the helix. There are a few more spurs for freight operations but is this worth the compromise on layout height and loss of “East is right, west is left” operating scheme?

So, I went back to the drawing board - crude as my designs are - and essentially did a John Armstrong approach. I did not design by squares but I sketched some basic concepts on an XtrakCAD printout of the basic room shape and benchwork placement. Interestingly, when this printed it was almost exactly the scale of my old Pacific Rail Products Track Planning template! I finally came up with a straightforward, single level design that might address my wants without too much compromise. I also revised my Givens (really, really want) & Druthers (nice to have), reducing my list to these key points:

• Freight operations
• An online yard 
• East <-> West traffic with East is right flow
• Both an East and a West offline staging yard
• Continuous run
• Mine operations with a mine shifter shuttling back & forth a couple times during an operating session

So what did I get rid of? Well, I can sacrifice an urban scene (East McKeesport) and the  interchange with a second railroad (P&LE) if I can't fit it.

What I came up with was a simple design when there are staging tracks in the garage which represent the West (Pittsburgh) and the train appears on the layout, travels through Irwin, past Herminie coal mine, across the duck under/lift out bridge and disappears behind a view block into the East staging yard (Greensburg). Of course, traffic would alternate flowing the other direction. This meets all my minimum requirements and could possible add a couple of the Druthers but here are the disadvantages or limitations as I see them:

• Hard for engineer to follow his train from staging in garage into the layout area - could be solved by moving the entrance to yard to other end (near door) and this may optimize the "waste space" note I have but not sure what other impacts (It would flip the direction so this would be the East yard but no concerns there.)
• Irwin yard tracks would probably have to be shortened (although I might be able to curve them a little around the bottom) and the mainline/passing siding would have to be shortened to fit the curves (24" radius in this diagram and I am willing to go 22" for mainline, 18" for yard and sidings)
• Although I was able to add East McKeesport, the mainline does not pass through it.
• Likewise, I have 2 P&LE staging tracks behind a scenery block which cross over the Pennsy mainline to service some tracks in East McKeesport but this may be optimistic on paper and impossible in reality.
• Herminie coal tracks are very short - maybe 3 cars each. Would like 4 tracks but would settle for 3 longer tracks if necessary. 
• Duckunder is probably too narrow to be realistic.

 I still have a couple of ideas I am mulling over, be this is where I am at the moment.