Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="railandsail"]</p> <p>SMART software view</p> <p>On another forum a gentleman Phil was so gracious to give me this view he created with what I think was SMART.</p> <p><img style="width:704px;height:auto;display:inline;" src="http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/sites/model-railroad-hobbyist.com/files/resize/users/hobbes1310/railsail4-750x1001.jpg" alt=" " /></p> <p> </p> <div class="quote-header"> </div> <blockquote class="quote"> <div class="quote-content"> <p>I had another play around with it. There is nothing wrong with the software I'm using to plan it. Problem is the track plan is tight,real tight. Would work semi ok with smaller engines. I used Peco #6 turnouts or curved Peco #7. Expect for the port area. nothing would work expect Atlas #4. Distances  i.e CTC are Centre track to Centre track distance. You would need to allow for edges of benchwork and overhang on loco's.</p> <p>I would change the placement of the yard, as suggested. But end of the day its your track plan. You will be the one building it and living with it. There are  issues with some grade separations. As highlighted by red circles.Also, there isnt much spare space for buildings scenery as well. Phil</p> </div> </blockquote> <div class="quote-footer"> </div> <p> </p> <p>I say it proves I can fit that plan into my shed, albeit with some narrower aisles than many would utilize.</p> <p>Brian</p> <div style="clear:both;"> </div> <p>[/quote]</p> <p>Phil pointed this out:  the two red circles.  The distance between the turnout and the point were the tracks cross is insuficient to make clearance for a train underneath in HO scale.  The one on the left will be around a 14% grade (calculated a rise over run of 3.5"/24").  Splitting the difference with a 7% grade still may not work well, and you will want to leave verticle transistions between the starts and stops of grades.</p> <p>The right hand one looks like it is about 11%.  Still a somewhat troublesome 5.5% once you split the grade.</p> <p>Im guessing by further posts that you have modified your plan somewhat to shorten your peninsula.  </p> <p>There is no scale reference on this drawing (squares) so I cannot say for sure, but it looks like the yard tracks on the right are not spaced far enough apart for two cars to sit on the tracks next to each other.  Adequate spacing is shown for parallel tracks on the right hand side of the plan just below the double crossover piece.  Another quick observation: with 24" radius curves, and even with locomotives that hinge in the middle (this actually exacerbates the problem in some cases), you may have a side swipe issues with the boiler and the cab swinging out (depending on which direction your locomotive is going) at this spot (the point 1-2feet below the double crossover).  </p> <p>I have about the same space to work with and have had these problems crop up in my track planning software (most software will let you place track right next to each other with no consideration of centerline track spacing). </p> <p>Check out the newly re-worked RP-7 (formerly S-7) from the NMRA. </p> <p><a href="https://www.nmra.org/index-nmra-standards-and-recommended-practices">https://www.nmra.org/index-nmra-standards-and-recommended-practices</a></p> <p>You may find that RP 7.1, 7.2, 7.3. and TN 7 very useful in avoiding clearance issues.</p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag

Update Reply

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!

Model Railroader Newsletter See all

Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!

Subscriber & Member Login

Edit post

Post Body

Tags (Optional)

Subscriber & Member Login

Users Online

Search the Community