I selected a layout (I think)

[UK78ALUM]

I've looked through literally dozens of "large L-shaped" layouts looking for just the right one and never found it.   However, I do really like this one with just a very few tweaks.

http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=1814

It's the Inyo and White Mountain RR........and let's just say it's "ambitious", OK?

So now I've got literally months of planning, building, wiring, etc. ahead of me and I can't wait to get started.  I'm still far from even getting out of the planning stage, but have one question regarding laying track.  It seems to me that if I lay the longest continous flat run (BIG loop with no elevation changes) first - I could use it immediately as a test bed for my existing rolling stock, etc., and then "grow" off the switches all along this base run shown in the plans.    Is that the right approach?

Thanks everyone.........

 

 

[Last Chance]

That is how I got mine going, a great big loop growing switches as they are needed. Worked for me. Some folks can doodle on paper, I see myself as a "Plopper" of track.

Cheers.

[tstage]

Let's activate that link:

http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=1814

[dehusman]

As long as your L shaped space is accessible on all sides and you are planning to run small equipment, it will work well.  The layout is designed and sized for operating small steamers and short trains in the 1880-1920 era.

Even though it has two "loops", you can't operate both at the same time without having somebody manually control stuff.  You can't just fire up a train on each loop and then walk away from it an let them run, somebody has to control access to the double slip-zero elevation switch portion of the railroad to line switches and control access.

Dave H.

[tomikawaTT]

I hope that the engine terminal at the bottom of the inverted L is the planned site of a couple of tweaks.

• There should be an engine length of straight track at the turntable end of the approach track.  A curve that ends at the edge of the pit would put side thrust on the TT - not a good idea, since that is the worst place on the railroad to have a derailment.
• The locomotive fuel stations should be on the approach track, not in a near-inaccessable location on a radial stub track off the TT.
• With oil fuel, all that has to be next to the track is a standpipe.  The tanks can be located anywhere, but there should be a boiler to keep the Bunker C liquid.

Just my , from one who is very conscious that locomotives have to be fed and watered.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with coal-burning steam)

[Beach Bill]

let's just say it's "ambitious", OK?

So now I've got literally months of planning, building, wiring, etc. ahead of me and I can't wait to get started.  I'm still far from even getting out of the planning stage, but have one question regarding laying track.  It seems to me that if I lay the longest continous flat run (BIG loop with no elevation changes) first - I could use it immediately as a test bed for my existing rolling stock, etc., and then "grow" off the switches all along this base run shown in the plans.    Is that the right approach?

Thanks everyone.........

 

 

That is a busy trackplan, but one that does offer LOTS of opportunities for developing mini-scenes.  We all tend to acquire more locomotives than any shortline would actually have, so the full roundhouse is a good place to display those.

As to the trackplan, I would suggest moving a couple stations:   (1) For the "upper" town, the "Passenger Depot" should be moved to along the main line, perhaps just across from the Water Tank;   (2) For the town of "Inyo", the "Whistle Stop Platform" should also be moved adjacent the main line - and one possibility would be to switch it's location with the "Tower".  You want that short passenger train or mixed train to be able to stop for passengers, mail, and LCL without having to back the train into or out of a spur.

As to construction sequence, completing one continuous loop (with connecting turnouts already in place) worked very well for me on the basement layout I used to have.  I then had a place for locomotive break-in runs and a spot to check everything for tracking and clearance ability.  It was also nice sometimes to just be able to let a train run while working on something else over on the workbench.  The early enthusiasm made operation on an open grid enjoyable, and then when I added scenery to just one corner it increased the desire to add more.

There are some relatively expensive turnouts in this plan (double-slip; three-way)....  Good luck!

Bill

[markpierce]

While the plan specifies an 18-inch minimum radius, danged if I don't see some 15-inch curves.  That will severely limit the size of locomotives and cars.

If you have a room large enough for access from opposite sides, you are likely to have room for a shelf layout along the walls and operating it from the center.  This would permit much wider curves, you wouldn't see your entire layout in a single glance, and it would feel more like operating a real railroad. 

Mark

[markpierce]

If Kalmbach includes any plans like the above in its forthcoming book 102 Realistic Track Plans, I'll be greatly disappointed.  The track plan is anything but.

As pointed out, locations of service facilities and stations aren't logical.  This indicates to me that the designer was not familiar with how real railroads worked.  Also, the minimum radius is misrepresented, and there is no way those two curved turnouts will fit as drawn.  These are red flags to me.

There is no logical explanation given for having a railroad schematic consisting of two circles intersecting each other other than for the apparent running of two trains on different routes while still needing to avoid collision.  This is not what I would call realistic operation.

Given the apparent locale, it is absurd to have specialized track like a double-slip switch and a 3-way turnout when they are both unnecessary.  Similarly the frequent use of double spurs is gratuitous.  Further, scenes are very busy with track and structures, resulting in an urbanized appearance for a geographical area which is anything but that. 

Well, at least the narrow gauge and its interchange is a nice touch, but the plan only allows for terminal switching.  At least extend the track beyond Yerzen Mine so that a narrow-gauge train can be staged there so that arrivals and departures can be modeled.

This plan is a model train set-up, not a realistic layout.  It is such a shame because there is so much lost opportunity even in the nominal space this plan requires: 8.5x12 feet, a good-sized bedroom.  It is worse when one realizes this plan requires a 12.5x16-foot room.  Oh my, The horror (of realism lost.)

Mark

[markpierce]

So now I've got literally months of planning, building, wiring, etc. ahead of me and I can't wait to get started.  I'm still far from even getting out of the planning stage, but have one question regarding laying track.  It seems to me that if I lay the longest continous flat run (BIG loop with no elevation changes) first - I could use it immediately as a test bed for my existing rolling stock, etc., and then "grow" off the switches all along this base run shown in the plans.    Is that the right approach?

Sorry for the rant.  The answer to your question is "yes."  My argument is with Kalmbach, not you.

Mark

[UK78ALUM]

Sorry for the rant.  The answer to your question is "yes."  My argument is with Kalmbach, not you.

Mark

No apologies necessary at all.  I understood completely.

In fact, as I thought through this further today I realized that it's far more than tweaking.  I'm going to run both the Alaska RR and the White Pass & Yukon RR.  Conceptually speaking, I think I'd like for each to be on their own side of the "L" and share the mountain at the corner of the "L"- along with sharing access to the long loop main line without the goofy intersections, etc. 

Oh well, back to the drawing board.....

 

[markpierce]

While the plan specifies an 18-inch minimum radius, danged if I don't see some 15-inch curves.  That will severely limit the size of locomotives and cars.

I want to take back the above statement.  It is in error.  I measured the radius based on my computer screen.  I forgot to take into effect of my wide-computer screen which lengthens the horizontal axis compared to the vertical.  Measuring from a printed copy of the plan, the minimum radius is 18 inches, as the plan specified.

Mark

[markpierce]

I have to apologize for my fixation on this layout plan, but I found another serious design flaw in this plan.  It doesn't provide for a transition for the change from 0 to 4 percent grades.  Without gentle vertical curves between grade changes (not passing through turnouts), one's asking for serious problems like derailments, unwanted car uncouplings, and electrical shorts.  Layout designers and magazine editors, please take note!

Seems like I need that trip to Alaska leaving 4 p.m. tomorrow from the Port of San Francisco on the Dawn Princess.  I'm looking forward to seeing Skagway and riding on the White Pass & Yukon RR.

Mark

[Trevelyan1223]

I'm kinda curious if the layout was originally built as just the 4.5' by 9', and then expanded.  My layout is about 5' by 10' and I like the general shape of the mainline as an outline for expansion, regardless of the flaws with the details.  If I was starting from the ground up in a 9'x12' space I'd agree that a shelf layout or something similar would probably be better, though.

[steemtrayn]

I would consider replacing the 90 degree crossings with an over-under arrangement for better scenic possibilities. Might ease rhe grades a little, too.