Walt,
you have found out someting very important, and even more then one. Being able to reach in is an asset, as well as being able to have your table on another place in your room. That's why the old hats always ask to draw in the footprint of your room as well. Finding a good footprint (and some alternatives) is among the cornerstones of good design.
David Barrow went a long way to make his layout changeble. Not because he is making newbe errors, but because he is the kind of person with a wandering mind, TMHO; before he finds the time to finish his current pike, he allready knows a better(different) way to go. He seem to love switchbacks too (on smaller pikes only?). And you have to find out what you like. How can you know from a book only? Lance Mindheim is purposely building a "small" layout because 5 years is his max. time span.
Have a happy birthday, have fun
Good luck to your all
Paul
PB&J RRYou are right it is quite a reach to that corner... my solution to that problem, (which I discovered all on my own, with only a little help from my chubby little gut) was to move the table out from the corner diagonally 18 inches, which gives me ample walkway along the rear side of both legs...
You are right it is quite a reach to that corner... my solution to that problem, (which I discovered all on my own, with only a little help from my chubby little gut) was to move the table out from the corner diagonally 18 inches, which gives me ample walkway along the rear side of both legs...
Well, if it is worth it to you spend 35% or so of your dedicated layout space on two narrow 15" or so wide aisles along the back sides of your layout, then so be it.
Btw, such issues is why designers like Byron Henderson is often saying "see the space, not the table", and is insisting that it is a good idea to draw up the entire room, showing where things like door, windows and stuff that need to be accessible (like electrical panels, closets, heaters etc) are located.
It could be that a different layout foot print would have given you a more railroading for your space, and at the same time better access. Hard to say without knowing what your space really looks like.
But your layout, your decisions.
And I sense that you are getting a little tired of people nitpicking about your every move :-)
Just go ahead and build it and see how it works out for you, instead of spending a lot of time on planning and designing. If it works, great. If not, just change things and try again.
PB&J RRAs far as a switcher pocket, you probably mean below the classification tracks on the right side at the first turnout... That way the F unit can bring the train into the yard and uncouple before going straight to the engine house, well out of the way of the switcher, who can start breaking down the train from either end...
As far as a switcher pocket, you probably mean below the classification tracks on the right side at the first turnout... That way the F unit can bring the train into the yard and uncouple before going straight to the engine house, well out of the way of the switcher, who can start breaking down the train from either end...
Mmm - I suppose a pocket on the right end of the A/D track might save a little time in getting to the caboose of a train with the engine on the left and the caboose on the right. But what I was thinking about was whether it would have been smart with a little switcher pocket on the left end of the engine lead, to allow a switcher to get out of the way of a train coming into the yard from the left towards the right.
Not necessary if all your trains will be short enough to clear the turnout to the yard ladder when pulling into the A/D track - then the switcher could just pull it's vanishing act by ducking into the yard ladder to get out of the way.
But it would maybe allow you to run trains longer than your A/D track occasionally, letting the switcher first pick off the rearmost part of the train and store it in a body track, so the rest would fit into your A/D track.
Then again, I tend to think too complicated about yards sometimes, you could always do such stuff just using a part of the main if desired, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Grin, Stein
Hey Stein,
I'm not getting tired of you guys telling me what's wrong with my design... I don't really take that stuff seriously.... Its hard to express in this medium, but I really do have a good sense of humor, sober but humorous...
I added the switcher pockets one to the right and one to the left.... And I'm taking another look at the old plan, I have quite a bit of steam equipment and I like turntables and roundhouses-
Above I need to add staging along the top, as lee suggests 3 tracks mean one east and one west and one pass through, probably do away with the inner loop entirely and just add a couple of train length passing sidings... On the left, if I decide to keep the switchback paradise, I'll do it as a logging operation,, which will no doubt endear the idea to an uncle of mine, a lifelong timber man...
The center section however, needs something... for me this is a lesson worth learning, but if you are weary of it I understand, it has been labor intensive for both you and Paulus...
I've heen inside the mind of a genius for the last day or so... I've been reading John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation... I ordered it the day you suggested it, and I have to say I am learning some thin
Dear Walt,
I am happy you are not tired at all. I spoke about using a different language; I'll give you four exemples.
PB&J RRI have quite a bit of steam equipment and I like turntables and roundhouses-
So i expect them both in your plan, but also the service area next to them. Those steamers needed lots of coal, even more water and some sand also. Where is your coalpark with all the other goodies?
PB&J RRAbove I need to add staging along the top,
You did add some staging. But on the CCC&stL and the PPR staging tracks you can't park a whole train, just some cars. Why didn't you plan them both at the top and why so short?
PB&J RRI added the switcher pockets one to the right and one to the left....
I don't see any, but it is the language again I guess. (Or do you mean you connected two spurs to get a run-around?)
PB&J RRif I decide to keep the switchback paradise
One switchback is a bit meager for being a switchback paradise.
It is not about right or wrong; but try to explain what you are up too. This is the reason I numbered all the tracks. Real railroads did it too: so they could specificaly tell the purpose of every track in town. "Money can be spend only once" is a line every CEO understands very well; laying down tracks never comes cheap.
I am curious to know what you think about Armstrong's bible. I read the book maybe 30 years ago for the first time, recently i did some reading again. I once read an interview with him, he stated it was just so logical, no genius needed. You just have to start thinking as real railroads (or their CEO's) did.
Have fun , good luckPaul
PB&J RR The center section however, needs something... for me this is a lesson worth learning, but if you are weary of it I understand
Yeah, I feel it's time for me to move on to other designs, since I can't really offer you much advice I haven't already offered - and you now have Armstrong's book to learn more about both real railroads and model layouts.
It is now up to you how you apply what you learn from Amstrong's book (which is very nice - my copy is falling apart from having been read a lot of times :-) and possibly from those of us who have offered you advice.
Paulus,
Calm down... I forgot to post the other drawing... Reading John Armstrong has sent me back to the drawing board... Literally and figuratively... Its been a busy couple of days, I started scratchbuilding some shotgun houses and cut a two stall engine house out of foam core poster board so I could set it in place when I snapped together the yard from my second plan...
I've been working on adding steam facilities to my plan and playing with an Armstrong design... He did these shelf switching things that look like a lot of fun, But I don't know if the novelty would wear off of it in a hurry...
I don't think this is perfect, I'd say I need to reduce the size of the yard and engine facility... but ths all there, staging, long yard lead, inbond and out bound tracks, loco service, rip, and lots of industry to serve...
In truth, as I sit here reading John Armstrong, I don't like either plan very much, so changes are coming, but I'm going to call it quits on this thread for a while until I work it out.