Layout Feedback Requested

Thanks, Scott. This is probably the hundredth layout I've designed over the years, but it's the first one I think I'll take a serious stab at building since, oh, the late 1980s or so!

I am familiar with the electrical complexity of reversing loops, but I agree it's a good idea to mention those issues before a nooB explodes their power pack! I started playing with trains 30 years ago, and they were responsible for all that I originally learned about electricity. But it's definitely better safe than sorry, so I appreciate the comment.

I'm planning on automating a lot of the operational details, probably with a Parallax Propeller microcontroller.  By cleverly hiding infrared proximity sensors in the scenery, it will be possible to handle the polarity switching and those messy details in a hands-off fashion. The Propeller is neat because it's got eight independent execution cores — it can walk and chew gum with a vengeance!

The ucontroller is also a USB-capable device, so if I switch to DCC down the road I can maintain the CPU for auxiliary functions like lighting, and offload the train operation to JMRI or an equivalent. It could also handle the detection circuitry and pass it back to the Java-running machine through USB.

Today I was working on the structural details of the trestle underpass. It's a devilishly tricky structure, being a curved bridge with a nearly-parallel underpassing mainline, but I think I've got the structure worked out in a prototypically-feasible way. I'm going to start drafting it up tonight, and I'll post plans when I have them done. 

That is a neat controller- I look forward to seeing more about how you will do that.

Cheers,

Scott

Overall I think it'll work fine for your purposes, but you need to keep in mind some of the things said. 

Small steam in N scale are not good pullers, trust me.  My own layout is loaded with them on my shortline and it doesn't take a lot to bog them down.  I have an old 0-4-0 and a 2-6-2 (the old Bachmann thats really just an 0-6-0 with lead and trailing trucks tacked on) and on a 3.5% grade I'd be pushing it to get more then a couple 2 or 3 good rolling cars up at a time without some wheel slippage.  On the other hand, if you really want steam, one of the Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0's will do a lot better.  And better yet would be the diesel already mentioned.  They're basically a giant lead weight with wheels, so they pull well.

I'd also think about adding a siding or two, and a track that leads towards the edge for future expantion (call it an interchange track for now).  That future expantion could be more layout, or just some staging.

Just my thoughts.......

Here's an overview of the trestle. There are corections to be made and a few clearance tweaks but it should be basically good; probably just a matter of eliminating some impinging diagonal members. (The first plans I drew of the support piers had the underpass too narrow and the trains would have gotten stuck on almost every post. D'oh!) There is a lot of detail not shown, like the fairly intricate stringer work; distributing the load over that acutely angled mainline would have been a real challenge in a prototypical setting, where structural integrity actually counts!

RailOhio, I agree there is not a yard nor a thousand switches. That's mainly budgetary. :-) But I disagree there's not much operations capability; in seven feet by two I have a continuous loop, TWO reversing loops, a switchback and a mine. Since one of my stated goals is to achieve automated operation driven by a computer or microcontroller, that's plenty complicated for now.

Plus, I enjoy scenicking, and covering that entire mountain with trees will keep me busy for QUITE some time. Maybe I should have a great swathe of clear-cutting (from building the trestle?) which will account for the missing trees for a few years while I fill it in.....

Thanks again for your comments, Scott. I will indeed keep you posted.

Those are good points you make. I was really only planning quite short trains anyhow, so even a little 0-4-0 might do to start. I suppose my main concern was not so much the steep grades as the tight turns. Would a 2-8-0 (which was you point out would be better on the grades) handle 11" curves happily?

 My love of steam is all about the dance. I really dig the way the complex linkages beside the wheels spin around; diesels are, well, kind of bricklike in comparison.

As for expansion, I may fit in a switch inside the tunnel, and excavate an exit path. I'm planning on making the extruded foam over the tunnel removable anyhow, for obvious reasons, and a future staging track is a good idea. It's easier to plan now than tear apart later! 

Oh yeah, the Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0 would be just fine on an 11"r curve.  I wouldn't go much over that size loco though.  A bigger loco might make it through the curve, but it'll look goofy doing it.

Besides the Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0, the Athearn 2-8-0 is an excellent loco as well.  It's of an 1890's design, so it would be quite at home on a layout into the 1920's, while the Bachmann loco is a USRA design and so it would be good a timeframe from about WW1 on.  Both loco's are very good runners and would be fine on your curves.  With htese choices you'll have some wiggle room in your timeframe.  You could even get one of each and model the early 1920's!

OKAY, I AM SOLD ON THAT CONCEPT!

That baby would look beautiful pulling anything! And there's space inside the tender for ballast, if need be. Or DCC later, if not.

When I was about nine I had the chance to actually drive a steam locomotive. Fortunately my grandfather was there, as I was strong enough to open the throttle but not strong enough to close it.