Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Thoughts on layout plan

1580 views
18 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July, 2017
  • 53 posts
Thoughts on layout plan
Posted by Alexander on Saturday, July 15, 2017 7:27 AM

Hey everyone,

I think I final have the final plan. I did not post it directly to the forums because I currently do not have access to a computer. Yes I do know I misspelled access. For reference: green track is lower than orange. http://chessiephotosho.weebly.com/

 

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by cuyama on Saturday, July 15, 2017 9:04 AM

Here is yours

Here is my HO 8X10 that I think you used as inspiration

Since it appears that you are building in a bit larger space, your version probably could work overall, but I find that I personally prefer my version because it allows a continuous run -- unless you specifically don't want that. I haven't checked elevations and grades on yours.

Best of luck with your layout.

Byron

  • Member since
    July, 2017
  • 53 posts
Posted by Alexander on Saturday, July 15, 2017 9:58 AM
Thanks! And yes you were the inspiration.
  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 1,360 posts
Posted by angelob6660 on Saturday, July 15, 2017 11:55 AM

Yes I do agree. That having a continuous loop should be added. Instead of having a reversing loop.

If possible could have both.

Modeling the G.N.O. Railway, The Diamond Route.

Amtrak America, 1971-Present.

  • Member since
    July, 2017
  • 53 posts
Posted by Alexander on Saturday, July 15, 2017 2:36 PM

I've decided to take out the intermodal facility and use only coal industry until I make a plan. Also a continuous loop might be able to incorporate but I would have to build a lift or swinging bridge. I would like that but seems sketchy. Ill have to spend more time on google.

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by cuyama on Sunday, July 16, 2017 7:59 PM

Alexander
Also a continuous loop might be able to incorporate but I would have to build a lift or swinging bridge.

We may have a failure to communicate. My version has a continuous run with no lift or swinging gate required. You have even more space.

  • Member since
    July, 2017
  • 53 posts
Posted by Alexander on Monday, July 17, 2017 1:09 PM

Well I would like to keep the track plan I have, but have a track coming from the south east mine branch to the yard. To do this I would have to make a lift out bridge which is A-OK for me. Also, the industry that is on the far west side, do you have trouble reaching it?

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by cuyama on Monday, July 17, 2017 6:44 PM

Alexander
Also, the industry that is on the far west side, do you have trouble reaching it?

I didn't build the layout personally, but for those who have, they can reach from the access space or the aisle. (assuming that you mean the left side of the track plan when you say "west")

  • Member since
    July, 2017
  • 53 posts
Posted by Alexander on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 9:04 AM

Wouldn't it be a pain to crawl under the benchwork to the access port just to switch that small siding then crawl back under to get back?

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by cuyama on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 9:53 AM

Alexander
Wouldn't it be a pain to crawl under the benchwork to the access port just to switch that small siding then crawl back under to get back?

One can reach the uncoupling point from the aisle on my version. And/or use a magnetic uncoupling ramp. No crawling required.

Of course, you could eliminate it, too.

  • Member since
    December, 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 2,253 posts
Posted by Doughless on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:08 PM

I don't see a reach problem at all with Cuyama's plan.  The switch point of the turnout is near the narrow part of the aisle.  The uncoupling point is just beyond that at the north side of the covered dock.  It looks like a 24 inch reach is the maximum needed.  

If it were me, I would switch the industry only once in a while relative to the other industry's, for operational variation.  

- Douglas

  • Member since
    July, 2017
  • 53 posts
Posted by Alexander on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:25 PM
Well my concern mainly focuses on the yard you have to reach over. An arm could easily bump a car or two.
  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by cuyama on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:46 PM

Alexander
Well my concern mainly focuses on the yard you have to reach over. An arm could easily bump a car or two.

The uncoupling point is (purposely) pretty far from the yard body tracks where cars would be sitting. And at a higher elevation. 

Again, it could be left out if you don't wish to include it.

 

  • Member since
    July, 2017
  • 53 posts
Posted by Alexander on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:53 PM
Yeah I redid the layout plan and updated my website with it. I plan to have a coal route.
  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by cuyama on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 11:12 PM

Alexander
Yeah I redid the layout plan and updated my website with it. I plan to have a coal route.

I don't understand the reason for the schematic you're attempting here. The moveable gate doesn't really give you anything that a walk-in loop-to-loop wouldn’t also provide (with less construction complexity). And you'd likely benefit from a passing siding/runaround at the yard (as on the original). It just seems (to me) to be a sub-optimal use of the space – but I certainly may not be in tune with what you want to accomplish.

I don’t seem to be adding much value to your process, so I’ll bow out of the thread. Good luck with your layout.

Byron

  • Member since
    February, 2015
  • 215 posts
Posted by Choops on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 7:53 AM

I egree with byron.

Get rid of the duckunder or eliminate one of the turnaround blobs for better use of your space.  Having both is wasting space and inconvenience.

Steve 

Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    August, 2013
  • From: Richmond, VA
  • 1,352 posts
Posted by carl425 on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:11 PM

No offence intended, but I feel the need to be blunt.

Based on your posts in other threads, I see this is your first layout.  You need to understand that layout planning requires advanced skills that you do not yet possess.  A first layout is best built from a proven published plan done by a reputable designer.  You have far too much you need to learn to build a layout to risk the success of the entire project by trying to design it yourself.

Byron's plan, while probably buildable by a determined first timer, is almost too complicated for a complete newbie.  If it is modified by someone who doesn't understand the nuances of layout planning it is almost certain to fail.

My advice is to take Byron's plan, or one created by another professional that has been built successfully before, and build it as designed without messing with it.

I have the right to remain silent.  By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.

  • Member since
    September, 2014
  • From: 10,578’ (3,224 m)
  • 684 posts
Posted by jjdamnit on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:39 PM

Hello all,

cuyama
I don’t seem to be adding much value to your process, so I’ll bow out of the thread. Good luck with your layout.

Said diplomatically and professionally!

Thank you!!!

Hope this helps...

Post Script:
"A model railroad should probably start with a concept. Why? Because much knowledge about railraoding, experience in model railroading, and thought are required before a proper concept for a model railroad can be formed. These requirements are seldom possible on a first pike. Mine was no exception."
- -John Allen; Gorre & Daphetid Railroad.

j.j.

"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"

  • Member since
    December, 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 2,253 posts
Posted by Doughless on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 8:51 PM

Alexander
Yeah I redid the layout plan and updated my website with it. I plan to have a coal route.
 

If you were to run a train around Cuyamas plan and your updated plan, you'd discover that Cuyama's is basically a figure 8 (with a long spur/branch) and yours is a reverse loop-to-reverse loop (water wings).  

You have simply folded up your water wings plan to resemble Cuyama's folded up figure 8 into the same basic shape.  

And since figure 8 and waterwings plans already offer continuous running, folding them up so they pass along a doorway that requires a duckunder is probably not the best use of space.  

IMO, I would simply take Cuyama's plan and splice in extra track near the narrow north side where the "3 1/2s" are as to fit your space better.  As a benefit, what ever grade challenges that exist in that upper loop will be lessened with more space.  Not to mention, there would be more space to put a diagonal backdrop along the branch line which could hide the access hole and one of the tight radius loops, which would enhance visual appeal.  You may also be able to sneak in another small industry along the coal branch for the times you want to run something other than a coal train.  And finally, the 29 inch aisle could be widened a bit by slding the loop to the right.

 

- Douglas

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Popular on ModelRailroader.com
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
Find us on Facebook