Faced with a possible need to rebuild my small C&O -themed RR, but blest with a larger space, I've been working on a few design concepts in the hopes of having a no-stoop RR. A few points of reference:
space 10 ' x 13 ', fully accessible on 3 sides (in the drawings the bottom is the wall)scale: HOmin radius: 24" main; 22" branchemphasis on coal branch operations with just modest representation of main for contextstaging in lieu of formal yardmulti deck okgoverning locos: 2-6-6-6, RSD-15 (?), 2-8-2 and E-7A (?) on main; 2-6-6-2 and GP-7 on branchDCC control
The design I've come up with is below in the images. seems to work all around - my main concern is that may be this is too complex to build. Open to thoughts and suggestions. BTW, the images are in order: staging, main level, branch level.
thanks
Charles
------------------------------
A few notes:
Space shown (10 x 13 ) is negotiated space in an otherwise much larger room, so access along 3 side is an easy given.
Staging level is envisioned to be seperated from main level by 2 or 3 turn helix. with a grade around 2.75% seperation would be 8 or 12 inches - or thereabouts.
Upgrade on the branch is around 3%, and is envisoned to be separated by a 4-turn helix or so (about 16 inches seperation from the main level).
Thanks for the comments so far and sorry if the drawings aren't too clear on some things.
hi Charles,
your design is complicated, but maybe even more complicated as you'r thinking right now.
You did not gave to much information, so I have to guess a couple of things.
1) On the mainline only the junction is build. Just above it is the crusher on the completely visible branch. The crusher is working for the two mines at the two ends of the branch.
2)Between the junction and the and the crusher are lengthwise about 25 ft; so you'll need a 5% plus (because of vertical easements) on the branch to gain enough heigth (15") to the top level. Steep, but it can be done; if you think it's to steep you'll have to build a one-turn helix as well.
3)When I try to picture your whole layout you will have "some" foresting to do; so much that I would shy away. It is your layout, and your decisions.
You did not provide a drawing of your room with doors and other obstacles. I have the feeling you have a lot of "unused" space , other then for your forest, on the southern part of the toplevel. On the mid-level you only have a small junction for the whole level. Do you want to rethink the footprint of your design?
Keep smiling, keep having fun
Good luck
Paul
The main thing you have to look out for is the clearances where your tracks pass over each other. You either end up with grades that are unmanageably steep, or headroom that's hard to get a realistic looking bridge on (or worse, that your rolling stock doesn't fit under!)
I'm not against a complex design, as long as it supports your operational objectives. Creating grades and curves "just because" may create problems that will make your train running experience less fun. But if you're following a line that requires such gymnastics to move your trains from point A to point B, it's fun to work it into the plan.
My layout has some interesting twists and turns.
The section under the paper mill at the lower left is a stack of three levels, with grades looping around in two directions, with a staging level below reached by a one turn helix.
Here's what it looked like under construction
And this is what it looks like now...
If you are creating potential headaches, make sure you're providing yourself with operational options that are worth the trouble!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
As long as you build from the bottom up and not from the top down you should be ok.
Dennis Blank Jr.
CEO,COO,CFO,CMO,Bossman,Slavedriver,Engineer,Trackforeman,Grunt. Birdsboro & Reading Railroad
24" is awfully tight for an Allegheny. I doubt very much you'll get satisfactory performance.
I don't think complexity should limit anybody, but I think everybody should ask themselves the following questions:
1) Do I have the time to do this? What is my timeframe? A month, a year, a lifetime? Can I be happy with my progress if I can only get XYZ done in a year?
2) Do I have the money to build this? I might be willing to eat beans-n-weenies to save up enough for a gold-plated, handtooled telepathically operated brace of 100 switch machines, but will anybody else in the family? One piece of flextrack around here is now almost as costly as a mojito made with cheap rum. What's my budget?
3) Can I maintain this thing? If you have to spend 5 hours maintaining for every hour operating, is that acceptable to you?
For me since MRRing is not my only hobby, this translates into linear, around the walls or shelf layouts - cheap, easy and fast to build, relatively easy to maintain, expandable. And should things go wrong, it doesn't kill me to chuck the thing and start over.
But everyone will answer those questions differently.
when having a second top level support is always a problem. The low level staging area can be behind bars; so your main mid level can be supported from below. For the top level it can help if the risers are in between the two sides of a double sided backdrop. I started drawing your layout with a backdrop in the middle. The number of support members depends also on what's under your tracks; using a spline roadbed reduces the number of members significally. It can be wise to anchor the risers in the ceiling as well.
The green line is where the risers and the backdrop are supposed to be. I hinted to it early'er on; when using the full possibility's of walking around the pike you didn't use all the scenic area's, to put it mildly. Scene 1 seems to me a tripple A-location, but isn't used on both modelled levels.
In stead of a hidden helix you have the space to build a long decending branch from the mines; much nicer then hiding it.
I still feel your radii overwhelm your trackplan a bit; due to having the largest power in town on a moderate sized pike. On both blobs however a 24" main line radius is possible. The problem is made larger by double and even tripple tracking the mainline, your choice however. Of course scene 6B can''t be modelled; this space can be used to get your tracks from the main level on to staging. (Ian Rice would be able to use 6A as well.) On the main level you basicaly modelled only scene 4, you could do better.
If you are curious to my ideas for the different levels, just ask. BTW I did not fine tune at all the design, it is about idea's using your space. May be my idea is allready thought out by you and rejected for good reasons.
Keep smiling, have fun and good luck
Paul - as I thought about the concept further, I agree that the design as shown does not utilize the available space very well. And going back to basic principles (ie, Amstrong squares) also showed me that a C shape was a good fit for the space - and one of the key LDE's I wanted to use fits in nicely. So..its back to tthe drawing board.
thanks!
Hi Charles;
you are right about the C-shape; I played a bit with the footprint I have drawn, and all the features on the visible part of your system could be placed on one level.
Take your upper level design as a base, the crusher is scene 4, the mines are scene 2 and 5 and the only thing you'll need to add is the branch going down from the crusher through scene 3 to scene 1 where the junction with the main can be modelled. No helixes needed, simple and straightforward; and 24"radii were not impossible.
Even a third mine can be added if you want to have a doubledeck layout. The branch is supposed to go to the midlevel but could also go directly to a junction on scene one. Having a smaller radius for the branch (18" in stead of 22") makes it possible to seperate the branch visualy from the mine run.
Just my idea's, may be they can help you when your going back to the drawingboard. Btw no fine tuning is done, it's about idea's only.
Keep smiling, keep having fun and good luck
To nucat78's list I would add 1 more thing. What do you intend to do with this ficticious RR? It doesn't look loike you intend to run any trains for extended distances. There's nothing wrong with a switching only scene, but you must understand any limitations on the track plan you have settled on, and be okay with them.