Suggestions

Anders,

I know how difficult it can be to come up with a good track plan. It wasn't too long ago that I was wrestling with the same things as you are now.

Just a few suggestions as I look at your plan. 

I might have missed something, but do you really need that "red" track for continuous running? If I followed the plan correctly, it seems you can do that with the blue and green track you have in place already. 

The small yard you have at the end of your branch line looks like it's going to be quite a reach from the aisle. If the height of the layout is lower, that might not be a problem. If your bench work is high, it might be though. That would be something to check.

You have a small spur in yellow on the west side of the plan. If I read it correctly the mainline of the branch is only 2" away from the spur, but is supposed to be hidden track. How are you going to pull that off with scenery? That's going be kind of tough, unless you're thinking of a straight up vertical rock wall or stone retaining wall there. 

Having a bridge that goes over your yard might look kind of neat, but will that make it hard for you to reach into the yard to uncouple cars?

I do like the way you've arranged the green track at the north end with the crossover just before diving into the tunnels. That's kind of neat. However, you might want to move the yellow tracks of the branch line passing siding back just a little more from the tunnel portals, again for scenic considerations.

I'm not an expert track planner, but I hope some of these suggestions help.

Best of luck on your design!

Red track is not absolutely

Red track is not absolutely needed, green and blue provide a circle but most of it is hidden. The red track makes for continuous running over all vissibel track.

Base of benchwork would be at least 1.2 meters (4') thus reach of small yard is an issue. Access hatch inside loop?

Yellow spur on west side is supposed to serve a mine, vertical rock side is okay, also main line can be moved further back above blue line.

The bridge over the main yard, don't know how else to solve the yellow branch line. It will make it harder reaching the yard. Bridge should probably be lift out for maintenance. Uncoupling should be done with installed uncouplers. Northwest corner is very hard to reach and benchwork should if possible be narrower in the corners.

J is a two level station serving both green and yellow tracks thus the tracks should be close together. Question is to put the curve so that tunnel portals have enough room.

But this is my initial sketch and rethinking it altogether might be the best solution. Thanks for the comments!

Layout purpose

Likes geared engines?

  Sounds like a short logging line with a connection to the main line would be a good fit. Something like The Siskiyou Short Line plan in Iain Rice's "Midsize and manageable track plan" perhaps, or maybe a Buffalo Creek and Gauley type freelance line with interchange track to the B&O? I'd distil it down to less track given the size of the space ........DaveB

How skinny and flexible are you?

And will you stay enough of both for the lifetime of the layout? Your plan shows the need for access holes that are rather tiny.

You mentioned rethinking, Here's a way to consider. It provides a mainline railroad with storage of offstage trains, and an interchange/station with a branch line that climbs above the "big RR."

The big change is keeping sections along the wall to 24 inches deep, for good access. The one wide table has access from both its sides. so reaching everything is manageable. There was a time when doughnut layouts were fashionable; you may find the idea bearable. Total amount of squirming thru access holes would be a lot less than you would need for access in the waterwings you posted.

Big RR is in green and blue with return loops at each end, The RED branch line meets the green line along the West side of the layout. The RED line can climb up as far as you are willing to go. This is only schematic, with no implication of which lines of track are closest to the walls. Double crossover is shown because you drew one, but it is perhaps unnecessary since all trains return from the same direction by which they left the visible trackage.

I drew turnback loops at 18 inches radius because you started that way. They are displaced from each other on the drawing, but need not be that way on the layout. The RED trapezoid stands for yard and connections to the GREEN line.

This is meant only as a jog to help you think differently.

Good luck,

DrJolS

Second take

All good advice, my interest is on the branch and logging/mining operation. A small railroad with interchange to larger neighbours. Just ordered the Iain Rice Midsize and manageable track plans, already have his book on shelf layouts. 

I'm neither skinny nor flexible and not too keen on duck unders or access holes. But I do want some kind of continuous running. Thus a dogbone is pretty much set.

I've done a second attempt, removing some of the spagetti, getting better room for staging, moving the main yard to the longer north wall, less steep grades, closer access to yards.

Left out the staging tracks to keep it less cluttered up. Red now is a connecting railroad. Main issue is getting enough clearance between blue staging tracks and westernmost part of green mainline under station B. With 4% grade in southwest loop it is now 90 mm (3.5"). Loop can be made larger extending East into aisle. Branch from J to B can be slightly moved west together with the red interchange track adding slightly to the main yard. Loop on East side can also be enlarged (to south) and removing turntable opens up space for yard. Perhaps station inside loop and engine terminal where A is now? Branch could bridge over yard but the blue line needs space underneath anyway. Shelf at A is 400 mm (16"), could be added to for the yard. Yellow branch is not part of continuous running, having a hard time to see how that would be done. Continuous running is with blue staging and either green main line or red interchange line. Not much of it in the open but possible to have a train going around. A mine operation somewhere along the branchline to add more operation. No return loops in staging, train leaving to west will return from east.

Still have a duckunder for access to catastrophe?

Anders, 

I'm admiring your blue staging tracks under other stuff. When (not if) a derailment happens back there, how do you reach it?

Allen Keller did a tape on the Reid bros. railroad that had a "rollunder." Sit in a low chair with wheels and use your feet to move you on the chair under the layout. Better than stooping or crawling. With your planned basic table height of 4 ft maybe you could use this. It won't work, though, for access to any trackage in the extreme NE and NW corners. How will you do that?

What is the green track for, that leaves the blue line, loops under the yellow lines and comes out to the crossing near J? It looks like it does nothing different schematically from the red line.

Happy thinking,

DrJolS

the Iain Rice Midsize and manageable track plans

  The layouts in there are bigger than your space but still a lot of interesting reading and ideas. Rice has a book called "Small smart and practical trackplans" that sounds like it might be more oriented towards the smaller spaces, I don't have a copy to know for sure. The Siskiyou layout I mentioned is point to point , for your space I think an oval with access would be the best solution if you want continuous running , it would allow bigger curve radius and wider operator aisles.. The tracks can circle the room a couple of times to add to the length of run. ......DaveB

Thanks again

Staging needs to be accessed from down under no question about that. With limited space staging in the open is hardly possible.

Green line under J and through crossing is the main, schematicly same as southern path of red line but only because both connect to staging. You could make the same argument for the northern part of red line that connects to blue line in northeast corner. Green main line and red interchange line share the same staging yard that is why they both connect to the hidden blue line.

Wide tables for sure is a problem to access, will have a second thought about around the walls, perhaps with liftout section for access instead of duckunder? That could then be stored away when room is used as common room for guests.

But first I will wait for Rices book and some reading up there.

How about a donut design?

With a 10' x 8' space only, have you considered building a donut style layout (with a center operating pit) rather than a folded dogbone? The two turnback curves take a lot of space, space you don't have, and they are also very difficult to reach across. A donut style layout can be built with much narrower benchwork and easy access everywhere from inside the center pit, and the side that faces the rest of the room can be wider as it's accessible from both sides, possibly even with two separate scenes divided by a center backdrop.

Best regards,
Svein

That is exactly what DrJoIS

That is exactly what DrJoIS suggested in his first reply. I'm not keen on the idea and think the disadvantage outweighs the advantages. Around the wall is good but having a table across the room in the middle of it is not. Shelf around the three available walls and accepting I can't have continuous running might be the way to go. Then much of the floor area can still be a common room which is a bonus.

Sorry, my bad

Sorry, I guess I skimmed through the other posts a little too fast, didn't notice that it had already been suggested and rejected.

Have you looked at Byron Henderson's 10 x 8 "water wings" trackplan?:  http://www.layoutvision.com/id56.html

It would fit perfectly in your area, plus, it has both a continuous loop mainline and a short branch, a small yard and an interchange track (which could be redesigned as a stub ended staging yard). You don't have to build it exactly as he drew it, but maybe it can be a nice starting point..?

Design idea

My suggestion would be an around the walls layout with a lift out bridge. Lance Mindheim describes how to make a good one on his website. You could design a continuous run for your mainline and have a branchline with a switch back to reach a logging camp at a higher level of the layout. That would be pretty cool and realistic too. Don't be afraid to try something different than a folded dogbone plan with extremely tight curves. An around the wall plan would give you an opportunity to use larger 24" radius curves. 

Tim

Re: Second Take

Might need some additional design work depending on era and locale.  You still have a lot of track buried (although having staging is good), a lot of track with a track over it at minimum clearance and what looks to be very steep grades.  The NE end of the staging tracks is particularly a concern because it is many switches buried under 2 other layers of track.  Access will not be fun.

The yellow double track on the left , I assume an industry area,  is unhandy for switching.  Cars spotted anyplace other than on the NE and SW spurs  will really make it difficult to switch.  If there are cars anyplace other than those spurs a train going up there will most likely have to leave the train on the grade and have the engine clear a route for the train to saw into the industrial area.  Could be reach issues.

I'm not sure of the purpose of the green line (unless its purely a run around). It appears what you have is a loop with staging and a junction point and a long branch to a mine/lumber camp/industrial area.  I think the plan can be simplified along that theme.