gary233 Ok who is Jim? Riogrande5761?
Ok who is Jim? Riogrande5761?
Aye, Jim is forum name rio grande5761
If I at some time after work I'd try some scale drawings but wife seems to keep me busy with with house projects - she already has lined up the next one.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
[/quote]
Tell her a fellow MR needs help .
I’m having a hard time with the yard because the 30” radius curves take up so much space. Is 28 enough for 70’ passenger cars? Those are the largest i run. Layout is 1940 - 1960 so mostly 40 and 50’ freight.
The passenger set I have is the MTH 5 car set.
Ok, if passenger trains will be a main staple of the layout, then you'll want the broadest possible curves, IMO. That would eliminate an E shaped plan....too many curves....too sharp.
The plan Jim has looks like the best shape for the room. You can push the layout to all of the walls of the room except the bottom for access. And that space doesn't nned to have 2.5 feet along its entire length, if you want to make a return blob bigger for a broader radius.
- Douglas
gary233I’m having a hard time with the yard because the 30” radius curves take up so much space. Is 28 enough for 70’ passenger cars? Those are the largest i run. Layout is 1940 - 1960 so mostly 40 and 50’ freight.
A 28 inch radius curve should be fine for 70' passenger cars, even 85' passenger cars generally run ok on 28 inch curves, but appearance is mainly what suffers.
Now in yards, you ideally want the largest radius curves you can fit because yards are used for making up trains and coupling/uncoupling, which doesn't work too well on curves, or may be impossible. So you would have to do coupling in straight sections of a yard.
Now I have used curves in yards in-order to fit longer train capacity in. Here is double ended staging yard I used a combination of 3-way, #6 and curved turnouts to make capacity the absolute maximum (ranging from 13' on the shortest track to 22 feet on the longest) in a 10x18' room:
Other end:
Curve radii in the above photo's is in the 34 to 40 inch range.
DoughlessAnd that space doesn't nned to have 2.5 feet along its entire length
It needs to be wide enough to get the hot water tank in and out.
Also, using curved turnouts will give you some more wiggle room in your yard.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
BATMAN Doughless And that space doesn't nned to have 2.5 feet along its entire length It needs to be wide enough to get the hot water tank in and out. Also, using curved turnouts will give you some more wiggle room in your yard.
Doughless And that space doesn't nned to have 2.5 feet along its entire length
Oh, I thought there was another exit at the bottom.
Design #2
Getting there
Gary, that is pretty much what I had in mind when you started the thread. Having that finger running off for the Turntable is what I am thinking of doing on my layout for a Barge loading facility.
I think I need to shorten the yard a little so I can add a runaround track and a yard lead so i don’t need to use the main as the lead.
I need to plan the bench work, background, control panel locations and decide which switches will be remote controlled and which will be ground throws.
Big improvement in design and use of available space. Might consider a double cross over between the two main loops.
Massive improvement on Design 2; one major advantage is no duck-under or lift out required.
If the squares on the plan are 2x2 feet, I'd extend that lobe on the right at least another foot to the left which could give you a little more breathing room for the track in inside the lobe. The extra foot would fit, especially if you bent the turn table around a little more to the upper left.
But otherwise a huge improvement.
I agree with Jim on extending the right lobe to the left a tad. You will be only walking through there to get in and out of the centre of the layout, only you know how much space you need for that.
You seem to have an awful lot of parking up top for the size of the layout. If it were me I would cut the width of the yard in half and have a row of small-town main street buildings against the backdrop with the street in front and then the yard.
I would have underneath staging with access down at each lobe on either end of the layout.
It's looking good, just make sure to have the willpower to get your backdrop in before anything else. That was advice I am glad I followed.
I like the suggestions. I’ll make some changes as see how it looks.
Here is a curve ball:
What about adding staging below the main level?
It could be done, even without a helix, just a ramp down and back up - no-lix.
riogrande5761 Here is a curve ball: What about adding staging below the main level? It could be done, even without a helix, just a ramp down and back up - no-lix.
I thought I said that.
Rich
Alton Junction
Ya know, I never thought of that, it's a great idea.
Thanks, Brent, I put a lot of time and thought into coming up with that idea.
I agree the ‘Yard” looks like a lot of parking but there are only 4 sorting tracks. The remaining five are a lead to the engin facility, an A/D track and 4 mainline tracks. There will be 7 customers, a car ferry connecting to the outside world as well as an interchange track.
as suggested I plan on shortening the yard to make space for a small town and add a run around track.
still too many?
gary233still too many?
Upon further examination, no.
Having your barge facility landlocked by the track going around will not "look" great IMO. What if you ran a spur track past the HWT either in front or behind (depending on space) that goes to the Port of "Water Tank". The port of HWT is an 11' x 18" wall mounted shelf that has the barge facility as well as other waterfront industries that could create good ops possibilities. The shelf could be easily removable when your HWT blows up and needs replacing.
Removing the barge facility from where it is will give you lots of room for a town.
What is the feeling about return tracks? When the train passes through the same scenery going the opposite direction it doesn’t look very realistic, I think, unless there is some separation in elevation or scenery. Unless the layout is a continuous loop around the walls with a duckunder, there is always, mostly, a return trip for the train. Sometimes it is hidden and leads to off layout staging. I apologize if this seems like hijacking the thread but I just wondered if it is considered an undesireable element in layout design.
The barge will pass under a large bridge and dock at the port. About 1/3 of that loop will be water.
I also made some changes as recommended and as I stated. I’ll try to get a post up tomorrow.