Paul ... Hmmm.. I may have making too much of the main - the emphasis should be on the branch since this is what I'm actually modeling. The main (and staging) are supporting actors.
So, back to drawing board.
Charles
Hi Charles,
I have a bit of mixed feelings. You are in a difficult phase of your design; thinking in Armstrong squares and given your footprint and wishes your pike should be 5 squares wide and 7 squares long. This leads to a 18" radius , #4 switches and 6 feet long trains. You want much more from your limited space and you have come very close to achieving all your goals.
I made the branchline run a bit longer, you must walk along now, and added some spurs. The interchange with the main is now on the far west part, visualy further away from the mines. But not knowing the prototype is making changes easy. But doing so I made the staging tracks shorter; still long but, long enough to your taste?
The staging does worry me; you have one main line train and two trains for the branch in staging. The one mainline train is supposed to be a general merchandise train and a coal train at the same time. And it has to cover trains east, trains west and loads and empties as well. Wanting to much may be? I faced the same problem on my layout and in the end I decided to forget about the mainline at all. Looking back this took me more then four years however. Translated to your layout it means focusing on the three mines. This is by no means meant as an advice, more a clumsy way to say I understand your "problems".
The plan to the left was made to visualise your second plan; the plan to the right was made to get a image of using the far west area.
Paul
Paul and others..
Thanks for the help/ideas/comments so far - I have revised things a bit to solve the mainline train/branchline train interchange problems, plus some of the switching at the end of the branch. Having said that, take a look at the plans below - most notably went to single track for the main, which is much more prototypical of the area being modeled. I've labeled the key elements. A few things to note the pulpwood spur will be very basic - pickup trucks, a portable conveyor and a few guys to load a box car or two; this was all before the era of pulpwood cars., and more has been made of tipples 2 & 3.
Thanks!
Charles,
Great layout. I am also modeling the same C & O steam/diesel era in a 11' x 11' room. I want to include the town of Thurmond along with some coalmines and possibly a saw mill and lumber camp.
You have done a great job in putting things together. I am having problems with seeing the big picture of what I need to do and am amazed at how easy it is for people to come up with these great ideas.
Can anyone tell me how to print the layout after clicking on it to open the layout picture. I open it and then when I print it I only get part of the layout.
Thanks,
MC
Paul - did a bit of 'what if paper operations' and decided that the left hand lobe needsd to be redesigned - as it stands the ability to drop off and pick up cars is very difficult for the mainline trains, and that is one of the operational goals. So stay tuned as I revisit this.
Hi Charles
Sorry, I have done it again, just to look for options. The thick brown lines are backdrops, the thin brown lines are scenic deviders; more mentally then real.
I numbered the scenes (1, ..., 4) and the aisles (FW, CW, CE and FE).
At first glance i noticed your staging tracks are very long but few in number, so you want to run very long trains sparingly. Besides you can't run around the whole train in Flagstop, so I guessed setting out and picking up cars was not your goal.
I can follow your train up to the mines; at the same time you gave up modeling scene 1A and 3B. More important however almost all of the operation is done from the central aisle; only scene 4A is done from the far east. The scene I wouldn't like to give up in particularity is 1A, operated from the far west. But doing so, means your staging tracks will become much shorter. Scene 3B can be developed; with small railroad based activities like a teamtrack, a seed and feed co, etc.
It also means you may need an extra interchange track in Flagstop; btw you could add different industries here as well.
But your pike as it is, does reflect your druthers very well; (very) long trains and big engines on relatively large radii and overall a nice spacious design. My feeling is that trying to get in more will not come free.(see my remarks about scene 1A)
In the weekend I will look a bit more closely into the operating patterns and into the possibily to let your branch go all the way around the double-sided backdrop so Flagstop will be on the side operated from the far west; my job takes time too.
that certainly is a good looking design. The only question is how much space will there be between the two levels. On my triple level layout I have 12 inches, from rail head to rail head. This is accomplished through three spirals in a six spiral helix. My personal experience is that 12 inches minus the scenery support mechanisms shrinks the distance between levels down to about 10 inches which is not enough for scenery elements. Certain buildings are also too tall for this. So you might want to closely look at the amount of clearance between the lower rail head and the upper support.
Hope this helps.
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
Paul.. a few thoughts regarding the operations/trains scenario (see the diagram for direction,etc).
There are 3 'main line' trains being modeled:
These basically run from staging to staging.
There are 4 basic branch trains that run from the staging up/down the branch and then back to staging:
The Mine Runs are headed up by C&O H5 (2-6-6-2). GP7s handle the Local Mixed. Some other locos will be modeled eventually - including an RSD-12; 2-10-2 (B4) and an H4 (2-6-6-2). These all pickup/drop cars at the Flag Stop.
One of the goals is to mimic as best as possible the arrangement at the Flag Stop (this is Hawks Nest, WV on the C&O) - the rest is meant to be representative only of the New River region - of course as limited by space,etc. The branch is designed to support the three mines known to have existed. A few other industrys/spurs might be thrown in just to add some variety.
I am looking into some changes - adding in a short spur branch for a small pulpwood loader, perhaps a small re-arranging of the track at the end of the branch and maybe even the Flag Stop area (its not quite correct).
BTW, here's a schematic of what has been designed so far to help
hi Charles,
your backdrop ending halfway the left peninsula did the job. I couldn't figure out how you intended to follow the mine run; now I do.
Serving tipple 2 can be done from the second main of tipple 3; makes your design more flexible.
I do not understand the second crossover near Flagstop. I guess that most of the traffic will go to the main, so I would use a second lefthand crossover.
Overall you have designed a very nice pike; at first I had been thinking that the left part of your layout is a bit under developped. But your staging yard is ending close to the junction so you can run very long trains now.
Did you try out an other alternative? Having Flagstop and the junction on the left part, so you can follow the mine run around the backdrop and the central aisle all the way up to the mines. It does not add more length (only visualy) and is making the staging tracks shorter; unless you apply your first solution.
BTW you never gave much information about the way you want to operate your layout. You can run a couple of very long trains over the main. You can bring empties up to the mine and loads out, but is that all? No crusher or breaker, no making up trains down in the valley? Your layout seems to be a trainwatchers paradise, which is great if that is what you want.
Have fun and good luck
It may also be helpful to rough-in the structure locations and footprints.
Which tracks for Tipple #3 will be under the tipple itself? I'm assuming that the rightmost track up there is a dedicated tail/drill track for Tipple #2, otherwise you wouldn't be able to serve each tipple independently. In other words, make sure you've considered the switchback operations and understand the limitations.
First, thanks to all for the comments - I have revised a few things in the overall approach, most notably droping the idea of the lower deck with the good deal of hidden trackage - with a few minor changes I was able to keep basically the same amount of staging potential with much less hidden track. I also drew in the fasica and backdrop and labeled some key dimensions. For reference I have been using 3rd PlanIt to draw the rr design and the layout will be in a 19 x 22 garage - space has been allowed for a number of 'fixed' elements. That is, the 10 x 13 space is the negotiated envelope. BTW, no stoop in this context means no duck unders for operations purposes. So....
thanks again!
Just about every track plan or layout of a double decked layout I have seen to date have the upper and lower track plans virtually identical but yours has a variation, I like that nice job. I considered a double decked layout for the new layout but my hsitation was with the helix
Where was I going to put it and the amount of space it took up are what kept me from doing it. I now know I could have placed the helix in an adjacent room and I would have kept the bench work at a 24" maximum width.
Hey maybe next time around
Upper part of the plan looks pretty good for what you want to accomplish. But I wouldn't do a lower deck. You have a lot of hidden track to get to a small staging area. I would suggest connecting the two entrances to the hidden track underneath tipple1. You should be able to fit in at least one more staging track and you won't have as much hidden running. The other thing to consider is double tracking all of your main line. Most of the visible part is already and this would allow more mainline action..
Enjoy
hi Charles
You have done a great job on the drawing board; great use of space. I have some questions however.
Am I right, is there a wall along the lower side of your layout?
What do you mean by no-stoop-access? For access only or also for operation?
Do you intend to use double sided back-drops?
BTW for easy judging the footprint and the overall scheme you can zoom out a bit(lot). The server MR uses has difficulties with wide pictures.
Drawing in the wall(s), doors, the centre aisle and backdrops would help too. As it is drawn yet I do not get the whole picture.
So it is to early for me to have thoughts or feedback on the beast; questions only.
Which CAD do you use? I like the quality of your drawing.
A few weeks back I posted an idea for my new RR that was leanign towards a double deck approach. Between some construction related reservations I had and having had the opportunity to view some large double deck railroads recently, I decided to revisit what I was trying to accomplish. First I jotted down a few givens/druthers:
10 ft x 13 ft spaceHO scale24 in min mainline curves20 or 22 in (preferred) min branch line curves#6 turnoutscode 83 main; code 70 branch & spursno stoop access desiredC&O theme steam/diesel transition eragoverning locos: H-8 (Rivarossi) on main; H-5 on branch (Bachmann); plus F7 A+B+A, GP7 and some others in the wingsHawks Nest branch line focushidden staging okdouble (upper) deck if and only if it supports better space use andoperational featuresthis is mostly a freight RR
After testing a few basic geometries., Idecided that variations of a C or J might work out ok. - though the mirroed J shape seem to open up some scenic opportunities that always attracted me to the region being modeled. So, I came up with the design below - the first showing the visible portions of the proposed RR and the second the staging portion. BTW, the red arrows indicate the connections to/from each 'layer''. From a construction standpoint it seems to work - grades are a little tricky, but workable, and the branch line grade is actually less than the prototype. The locos work on these curves just fine - based upon my earlier RR [http://www.bearweb.com/hawksnest/visibleonly.jpg ] so that is not a biggie. In any event am opon to feedback, thoughts, etc .. on this beasty.