I'm attempting to layout the MC&F RR from the above mentioned book. I'm converting it to N scale and slightly adjusting the size to hopefully accomidate a larger helix. I love the layout, but I'd like to see if anyone has or can help me with:
1: Has anyone built this layout?
2: Or have any additional information about the layout? This is the worst plan in the whole book for laying out the tracks. I'm in the process of lining out a grid and determing the center of curves, but if someone has a RTS or XtrkCAD plan, that would be most helpful.
Thanks for the help/info. I'll be sure to post pictures as I go. I'll be building it under a loft bed for my son to run. (changing from a point to point shelf HO layout to N scale with operations and loop layout due to seeing some of the local layouts....Bruce McCosh, Hobbytown and the 6th and main N scale Club!)
Jason
I hate to say it, but unless you can talk someone into doing it for you, you will probably be better off learning XtrkCAD and working it out for yourself. The tutorial is quite good. The advantage is that when you decide to make a few "alterations" you can do so with full knowledge that they will work.
If you don't just do it, you'll probably spend more time trying to figure out how not to do it than it will take to learn it in the first place.
I would not count on RTS working. You are betting that the track plan in the book was done with Atlas track.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
I use anyrail. The free version is extreeeemely basic, but it's sufficiant for my needs. I don't have 55 bucks to spend. Even if I did I wouldn't. I've heard of a few good free cad rail programs out there, but I either can't find a decent downloadable version, or for one reason or another the stupid protocals starting flaggin off on the public computer and won't let me download. Like the one program it wouldn't let me download because it was an .exe file. Stupid, free internet, public, computers.
Thanks for your response. While I'm not looking for someone to do it for me, I was looking to see if anyone had done it. I'm very proficient at autocad and have the first level completed in that. I'm looking to see if I've got my switches drawn correctly, spacing between everything correct, and most importantly looking for an example on where the grades were started/ended since elevations are not shown on the plans. I was also looking for more of a possible lessons learned so I don't have to duplicate problems. I like the ease of RTS, but don't like the inflexability of the track available, and Xtrk works, but I have to redo the tutiorial again since I can't lay out curves without adjusting all the connecting track.
Thanks, Jason
NScaleJason I like the ease of RTS, but don't like the inflexability of the track available, and Xtrk works, but I have to redo the tutiorial again since I can't lay out curves without adjusting all the connecting track. Thanks, Jason
I like the ease of RTS, but don't like the inflexability of the track available, and Xtrk works, but I have to redo the tutiorial again since I can't lay out curves without adjusting all the connecting track.
Why, just hit the join track and the pieces are connected. The only problem I see is if you are trying to use sectional track. If so why. Flex is more, uh...flexible. (and less joints to derail and lose conductivity.)
The actual title of the book is 48 Top Notch Track Plans (from Model Railroader Magazine).
This plan has many flaws, and I doubt if it's ever been built as drawn. The 22" minimum radius helix in HO would be an operational challenge, access is a problem, there are a number of custom crossings and turnouts required, etc. Mr. Vondrak's fondness for arcane switching puzzles makes itself evident in a number of locations, as well. One example is where the crew must back their engine into the coal mine to switch an interchange track*. The lower deck is a little better than the upper deck, which seems a bit of an afterthought. But both have a number of unecessarily awkward trackage arrangements, IMHO.
You may be having trouble laying this out partly because it does not appear to have been designed for commercial turnouts.
If you are planning to scale this down proportionally for N scale, I have doubts about it working in the same relative space. Unless you are comfortable building and maintaining track from inside a 20" diameter tube, there will be construction challenges.
The layout also lacks more recent design ideas such as staging, but to each his own. It certainly seems that there would be more practical alternatives in the same space.
ByronModel RR Blog
* Could this have been the inspiration for the Folksmen's song "Blood on the Coal" from the mockumentary movie A Mighty Wind? "Old 97 went in the wrong hole ... now in Mine #60 there is blood on the coal ... blood on the coal ..."
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Bryon, thanks for your prospective. I was thinking of using the interchange more of a staging area for a train rather than an interchange, but realistically, it would be weird running a mainline train into a coal mine just to switch tracks. I could put in another switch and connect it to a line running above the helix (so I'm not in the mine) but I'm not sure how that would look as well. I was wondering about all the crossings at Sutter Creek. They all seem to be a bit off from standard crossing angles. Maybe it would be a fun place to try some custom work, but if it didn't work out, then I'd be out of a run around (loop) track on the upper level. I thought the top staging area would look good storing cars in there and would be easy access to change trains out.
The helix will be a challange for me at 20" (22" my expanded, lol, version). On the occurance that I will have to get in there, it'll just work, but as a lesson of responsibility, I hope my son will be doing most of the helix maintenance. (he's 4 so it should be easier for a few years for him)
Byron, do you have any other recomendations on track plans or changes to this track plan to make it better? I sure would appreciate them. With my limited knowledge, this looked like a great plan for small staging, run around, TT, RIP track, maintenance and helix. But that is why I posted this question on here to learn and grow.
I guess the basic question is, is the layout really for you or for your four-year-old?
In my experience, kids that age prefer something they can mess around with themselves, like Brio. LEGO trains or 3-rail O Gauge are other contenders as they get older. Waiting for the many months it woudl take to get the Muss, Cuss, etc. layout to a state of completion where trains could run in interesting ways would be tough for most children. (Again, my experience -- different children have different capacities to defer gratification).
Also, although I model in N scale myself, I wouldn't recommend it for a young child.
Even if the layout is primarily for you, this is not a plan I would suggest for someone new to the hobby. Or anyone, for that matter.
NScaleJason I was thinking of using the interchange more of a staging area for a train rather than an interchange, but realistically, it would be weird running a mainline train into a coal mine just to switch tracks.
I was thinking of using the interchange more of a staging area for a train rather than an interchange, but realistically, it would be weird running a mainline train into a coal mine just to switch tracks.
I don't think it works as an itnerchange or as staging, honestly.
NScaleJason I was wondering about all the crossings at Sutter Creek. They all seem to be a bit off from standard crossing angles. Maybe it would be a fun place to try some custom work, but if it didn't work out, then I'd be out of a run around (loop) track on the upper level. I thought the top staging area would look good storing cars in there and would be easy access to change trains out.
I was wondering about all the crossings at Sutter Creek. They all seem to be a bit off from standard crossing angles. Maybe it would be a fun place to try some custom work, but if it didn't work out, then I'd be out of a run around (loop) track on the upper level. I thought the top staging area would look good storing cars in there and would be easy access to change trains out.
No, they are all curved crossings, tricky to build and their placement across the yard is completely impractical, IMHO. Just a bad idea overall. He's trying to cram too much into too little space, and the shortcuts and compromises overwhelm the good stuff, IMHO.
NScaleJason I thought the top staging area would look good storing cars in there and would be easy access to change trains out.
I thought the top staging area would look good storing cars in there and would be easy access to change trains out.
I don't see a staging area, unless you're talking about the Interchange track, which is too short and too oddly connected to serve as viable staging.
NScaleJason The helix will be a challange for me at 20" (22" my expanded, lol, version). On the occurance that I will have to get in there, it'll just work, but as a lesson of responsibility, I hope my son will be doing most of the helix maintenance. (he's 4 so it should be easier for a few years for him)
I design a lot of layouts with helixes, but they are a last resort, in my opinion. And a helix that tight, with tracks hidden behind it? No, thanks. You will have to get in there.
NScaleJason Byron, do you have any other recomendations on track plans or changes to this track plan to make it better? I sure would appreciate them. With my limited knowledge, this looked like a great plan for small staging, run around, TT, RIP track, maintenance and helix.
Byron, do you have any other recomendations on track plans or changes to this track plan to make it better? I sure would appreciate them. With my limited knowledge, this looked like a great plan for small staging, run around, TT, RIP track, maintenance and helix.
Honestly, I don't think this plan is worth trying to save, just my opinion. Also, in my opinion, there's no reason to view a helix as a "desireable" feature. The complexity of multiple decks is sometimes worth the trade-offs, but I wouldn't suggest it for a first layout. And there is really no staging in this plan, at least the way most people define and use staging.
If it were my choice, I'd first give the son something else that the two of you could play with together (Brio, LEGO, et al). That way, he can immediately experience some fun associated with trains.
Then for your first layout, I would suggest something more like Kenneth L. Anthony's Lost River District Ry. on page 16 of 48 Track Plans. That plan fits on a hollow-core door (great starter size for N scale, IMHO), has some real staging (if short), the option for some reasonable operation, etc. Although it doesn't have a turntable, one could be easily added where the tie treatment plant is located now. (Personally, I think turntables usually don't offer enough "play value" for the space they take up on a small layout, but that's certainly a matter of taste.) In any case, I'd probably change out the tie treatment plant for another industry. And the plywood mill could be some other large industry, as well.
Anthony's plan is much more achievable for a newcomer. It could be expanded on as you build experience with a longer branch, more staging, and/or a larger yard on an adjacent shelf. Or turn it over to your son at some point when he's a bit older and you build your next layout.
Just as an example of what a hollow core door layout can become, have a look at Dave Vollmer's N scale Juniata Division (photo from his site below)
Best of luck, whatever path you choose.
Byron,
While this isn't my first layout, it is still a huge undertaking. I've built two layouts prior to this and the first one was atlas' over-under squeezed down to a 4x6 in HO. Never got a running train on that, didn't know better on anything. Next I've build a point to point in my son's room HO scale that he loves to run, but I have to be there to help him for occasional problems. He and I both love trains so its for both of us. At one operating session he throws the points and I run the train so we were hoping that with this layout, there would be some possibilities for ops.
Reason for changing to N: Mom doesn't like the shelf layout and wants majority of layout to fit under the bed. To make it so we have decent curves, we were going to N and with as long as it took me to build the first layout, I thought that he'd be close to old enough for N (cheap engines and cars at least, I'll keep my trains seperate). I'll keep his HO up till we get the N running and/or he'll have to surfice with his wooden RR. He gets disapointed with the wooden one because it doesn't look like the layouts we go to. (big detail guy)
I learned XtrkCad today and laied out the first level of MC&F. While it looks good, it isn't very functionable. Since I've built the framework already, I'll stick with the shape and design a better track plan. Thanks for your help and advice, Jason
Here's the redesigned top layer for the new layout. If you'd be so kind, let me know what you think. I've got the bottom done as well, but left the file at work. So it will have to come in the morning. Thanks, Jason (Big Boy Running for the up coming purchase of locomotive!)
Here's the bottom redesigned.
Well, put the famework together this weekend, here's some pictures of the progress so far.
Here's a revised drawing of the top and bottom. This software is really good as long as you remember that you can't always do what it'll allow you to draw.
Bottom: Revised location of TT and Round House for better viewing access into RH. Better laid out yard area and added structures.
For the top: Revised the engine house area for a better two stall useage of house, plus RIP track and a triangle turn around for my engines on the top layer.
Thanks for looking, Jason