Bonne et heureuse année 2010 et mes meilleurs voeux de santé et succès dans vos entreprises vous accompagnent.Happy New Year and my best wishes for good health and success to you all.
The yard I'm planning is not for switching,or very little 0-5-0 activity at most.What I'd like is more a storage yard so that I don't have to remove all my rolling stocks all the time.Simply turn the power switch off and everything sits there until the next session.This is also why I'm thinking of a staging area under the layout where whole trains could be left between sessions too.
Thanks for the answer.I know that my Big Boy will never be working very hard and that it will look rather strange to the purist's eye with barely a dozen cars in tow.Not economically efficient by prototype practices but I have it and will still use it,although it looks more at home on the club's layout.This is all the room I have and will try to make the best out of it.
Filling the layout area with the most possible tracks is exactly what I don't want to do.I'm thinking of a double track mainline with 16+ in. curves running on the periphery with likely a contour lower level (sort of shelf) where the trains would go down and disappear to resurface the other side of the layout,thus creating the "going somewhere" effect.I've never seen this done but I can handle that kind of construction.And doing so,I could arrange a three or four track staging yard under the layout connected with this shelf.The problem then would be to see the staged trains but...one problem at a time.And running on the contour also calls for a lift-out (or swing out) bridge to close the opening in the benchwork (don't want a duckunder) so the outer lower level would be accessed by both sides of this gap bridge so that I don't have to design a two level gap filler but will if I find that I have to.
As you said,I'm in front of a few restrictions that I'll have to cheat my way around with some thinking.This type of benchwork design doesn't leave me much wide areas for a turnaround loop so I guess I'll have to settle for a turntable (w/o roundhouse) wich I had originally decided not to use to save space and $$$.Also,I won't be able to have industry tracks with very wide curves all the way,so that I'll likely have some trackage restricted to my smaller locos,as I suppose did happen in the real life too.The smaller roster would bring the rolling stock to the main's siding where it can be assembled and taken over by a Challenger,for instance.
I'd be thrilled to have a neat 40X24 bungalow basement for my layout but don't.But with careful planning,I believe I can have a decent second choice.However,I'm well aware that my planning stage is far from over.A price to pay I guess.....
Hi Jack --
Happy New Year! Now, what would that be in Quebecois ? Bonne Année, perhaps?
Some stray thoughts on your design plans:
Is your main interest seeing longish trains run past ? Let's for argument's sake say a 130 foot big boy, 25 or so 40-foot freight cars and a caboose pull past your viewing point, for an about 7.5 foot train in N scale, or maybe a 100 foot engine, 3 80-foot coach cars, one 80-foot diner, one 80-foot sleeper, one 80-foot observation car and 2 40-foot head end mail/express freight cars, for an about 4.5 foot train in N scale.
Or put another way - a simple loop around the walls of the room would be about 4.5 train lengths for the 7.5 foot train, and about 7 train lengths for the 4.5 foot train. Can of course be made longer by doing a twice around or loop to loop. But 7.5 foot trains probably wouldn't really have a lot of room to stretch their wings in your room.
Do you want a yard because you want to do sorting/routing of freight cars bound in different directions, or mainly because you want somewhere to store (and display) your trains, or to use as visible staging for your trains ?
Have you considered modelling passenger train operations at a passenger terminal - setting out a sleeper to go on another train, picking up an observation car for the next segment of your journey, having a switcher take the mail car to the post terminal and put a new mail car on your train and stuff like that ?
Chuck Hitchcock did something like this on one of his earlier layouts. And there is a nice model of the NOUPT (New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal) on the Magnolia Route layout - my mind is a little blank right now, and I forget the name of the excellent modeller who has the Magnolia Route - but google the name.
I think I would advice focusing mostly on the passenger trains rather than on the big boy pulled freight trains. Or maybe focusing on an engine change terminal or some such thing, if it is the big steamers that mostly fascinate you.
Anyways - just some stray thoughts. Probably worth about as much as you paid me to offer them :-)
I don't have any sensible advice to offer on big steamers and crossovers - don't have the space (or inclination) to run them - I am a transition era diesel switching fan, myself - building an H0 scale switching layout in 6.5 x 11.5 feet :-)
Smile, Stein
Happy New Year to you Jacktal and to you Paul.
Jacktal, you really should pick up one of John Armstrong's publications (Track Planning for Realistic Operation is at the top of that list, buy it a Kalmbach or elsewhere). Really good stuff.
J.A. using a planning concept called "squares", without getting into a long explanation, squares are a way of describing space requirements and what will fit. If you want broad (161/2") curves in N-scale, a square is 19in on a side. You spoke of a large yard. You can fit 10 parallel yard tracks into one square, but it takes 2 squares just to build the ladder for 5 tracks. Curved turnouts would allow for getting a passing track into a return curve using a width of 2 squares (barely).
Yourr 8x9 foot space is 5 squares by 5.7 squares, less the center aisle of 2 squares in width by 4 squares long. And you have to consider the depth of the benchwork (24-30 inches deep) so your working space is even less.
Spend some time thinking about what you want to accomplish within the space you have. Remember that track can be disposed of, I don't think it should be the driver of the design. And the old adage "less is more" is very appropriate especially if you want scenery.
Have fun, ask questions, post pictures.
Alan
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
hi
a happy New Year and all the best.
Those big engines require long trains and space to run. May be you are familiar with the layout of Pelle Soeborg. You will find the trackplan in 102 Realistic Track Plans and in the MR-database.
A donut disign, no yard, no engine terminal, just a double track mainline with a small station along the line and one big industry. And a big staging area to feed his mainline. But a double track mainline with broad radii where his modern big trains really are showing off.
Pelle made coherent choices to be able to create a realistic model of a part of a UP mainline.
Bottom line is: what do you mean by maximizing space? A bigboy with 10 cars and a caboose on a 15" radius? Filling your space with as many tracks as possible?
Why do you want a yard? A place where your engines and crews are changed? Or a classification yard near a major junction? A bigboy in N-scale with 30 cars in tow, is 10 feet long and you still have add the curves, easements and yard throats: together 20+ feet. Can you get that kind of length in?
The same applies to a 7 feet long train headed by a Pacific pulling 10 coaches. It also means the use of a lot of #7 and #10 (in crossovers) switches. I am not sure of the Peco C55's are up to these standards.
So imho you have a bit of rethinking to do. It could be an idea to make of drawing of your space(room) with all obstacles drawn in and post it.
have fun and keep smiling
Paul
Finally,I have a little space for my layout,so now I'm pretty active designing it.The space isn't huge by any standard (8X9) but quite satisfactory for an N scale layout.It will be U shaped so that I have access in the middle with possibly a lift-out bridge to allow for all around operation.Now my main concern is to try obtaining satifactory operation and save maximum space so that an interesting scenery can be elaborated.
I'll be running steamers (1935-45,Pacific's to Big Boy) so large curve radiuses are a must.I'll make ample use of curved turnouts,double crossovers and double slips where ever practical.I already own most of the track (Peco C-55) acquired slowly through the last few years and all is left is to decide where and how to use it.I will try to respect prototype practices when possible but won't hesitate to diverge from them somewhat when limited space calls for it.But for this,I'd love some opinions from seasoned modelers.
First,the design of the yard...what is more practical?Fewer but longer tracks or more shorter ones,or a 50/50 mix,or 60/40.What is more useful in terms of operation.BTW,I'll be running more passenger trains than freight.
How do big steamers handle double-slips and double crossovers?Were these steam era features?I know that double crossovers aren't popular in prototypical trackage,whatever era,but what about double-slips?Are they confined to yards or if some can be seen on main lines?They sure make great space savers.
Were there ever double track trestles,wether wooden or steel?I'd like one (or two) on my layout but plan on double tracks in many places but still,I'll base on prototype where ever practical.Any comment would be highly appreciated,thanks.