New(old) Layout from 101 track plans

[AltonFan]

The "yard" on the Jordan valley layout also needs some serious reconfiguration if it is to be used for typical yard operations

[killerclone]

If anyone does happen to need 15 degree HO code 83 crossings they can be had here:

http://www.wondertrail.com/thestore/prods/RO42497PA.html

I just happen to stumble on to this site.

Thanks!!

[Anonymous]

Glad to help.

Your notion of digging out John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" is a great idea. For my money, it's still the best book ever written about model railroading.

--John

[killerclone]

Fiverings-
That's exactly the feedback I'm looking for.
Some of those things can be addressed but it might be better to to start from scratch and make better use of my space.

Thanks!!

[Anonymous]

The "Jordan Valley" trackplan looks to me as if it were designed by someone who wanted to build complicated trackage for its own sake, and not to provide realistic, varied or interesting operating possibilities.

The two double junctions look sort of interesting, but they don't accomplish anything other than to interlace a double track oval with a (partially) single track oval. All the ovals do is offer trains a slightly different route to chase their own tails.

Here are "gotchas" not already mentioned:

-- The double junctions call for 15 degree crossings. None are available built-up in HO at present, so they will havbe to be custom-built. (For those interested in double junctions, there is good news--PECO has announced a #6 crossing to match the #6 turnouts in its Code 83 line of North American prototype trackage, expected out later this year.)

--The double crossover at "Sarah City" is a needless complication, and the #6 turnouts in it produce s-curves which will result in less-than-satisfactory operation of scale-length passenger cars. Replacing this trackwork with a pair of #8 crossovers in the same vicinity would be a definite improvement.

--At both of the double junctions, the principal lines run through the diverging routes of the turnouts. The better practice would be to run the principal lines through the straight routes.

--Switching is hindered at "Salem" by the lack of a convenient double-ended siding (or "runaround track"). Also, the "yard" tracks have most of their turnouts on one of the main lines--the better and more realistic approach would be to have the turnouts on a lead track separate from the main. Further, the turnouts are all located on a grade which rises toward the tail end of the yard. The better practice would be to have the grade run in the oppposite direction, i.e., descending toward the tail end of the yard.

-- The curved single-track bridge at "Aaron" will be a headache to build and will be unrealsitic to boot. Note that if the siding at that location is kept as drawn, the points of the siding turnout will be out on the bridge.

--The distance from the edge of the benchwork to the upper left-hand and lower left-hand corners of the layout is greater than 30 inches. This will be inconvenient for construction and maintenance--particularly if the benchwork is buiilt at a relatively-high 52" off the floor.

--John

[killerclone]

QUOTE: Originally posted by skutskar

QUOTE:

If you are interested, I could go home and dig out my information.

Try dig out "Model Railroad Planning 2000" and you will find the plan on page 80 [8D]
It was not an Armstrong plan that where cut in half, it was the mentioned 101 Track Plans #82

I went through my stuff and I don't have that issue. I'd be curious to see this layout. Feel free to email me any details or photos.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:

If you are interested, I could go home and dig out my information.

Try dig out "Model Railroad Planning 2000" and you will find the plan on page 80 [8D]
It was not an Armstrong plan that where cut in half, it was the mentioned 101 Track Plans #82

[Anonymous]

I saw an interesting article in MR a while back where the author of the story took an old John Armstrong track plan, that happened to be a classic once around circle layout, and cut the track plan right down the middle. He then re-assembled the plan into an around the wall layout that was in keeping with more modern day track planning. It still has a continous loop effect, but provided an opportunity to switch. The loop portion actually goes out of site and below to provide hidden staging if you choose. It then re-appears on the other end.

If you are interested, I could go home and dig out my information. I have it all stashed away. I just completed building half of this track plan this winter. I love the operational interest it provides, and the old continous loop so I can watch the diesels blast by!

[killerclone]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tutaenui

OK I havent built this layout, and I don't know your level of experiance, but my reactions on looking at the layout if built as designed are as follows,
(1) maybe its a bit to big for a first attempt,

The size doesn't bother me all that much. I've built several 4x8's both open grid and table top. Off course that was 25 years ago, lol
Judging by the research I've done, things have gotten dramatically easier over the years. Between DCC and the new scenery materials (foam and the like) I think anyone can build a layout.

(2) layout has an oldfashioned feel,

I agree with you there, if you look at the place names they are all biblical references. Ahh the 50's what a magical time... (tongue firmly in cheek).

(3) Operational wise is suited to someone who just likes to watch trains run rather than
Switching

That is a problem. I want to add some more switching opportunity. On the other hand I have 5 kids, the youngest at 2 who love to watch things go around. I know this is heresy, but honestly I kinda like to watch a nice set of streamliners behind an F7 ABBA set move around the track.
The trick is going to be in sceneicking the layout so it doesn't "look" like a continuous loop.
After re-reading that last answer I think maybe I should come into the 21st century. ha, ha

(4) duckunder or removable shelf is a pain

I was actually going to make that permanent and keep the layout hieght to 52'+ so it's not quite so bad. Unfortunately if I go with a plan that doesn't encircle the entire space I'll be working with dogbones and I'm not sure I can get the big radii I'll need for 85' passenger cars.

If you haven't guessed by now, I like running passenger trains. The time period is going to be the early to mid 60's (1962-1968) I'm a big diesel fan and unfortunately I don't really care for the new stuff. I think this is more a function of when I grew up and what I saw as a kid.
The new railroad equipment is very functional looking (my opinion) as it should be. A real railroad isn't exactly worried about how a new engine looks, they are more concerned if this investment will pay off.
The older stuff has more of a streamlined look that was not only functional put good looking too. I guess back then they were just as concerned about profit, but maybe slightly more attuned to style. Selling an idea, the Super Chief, the 20th Century, etc)

Sorry I got off track there. lol

I haven’t bought any lumber and this is still in the planning stages so keep the ideas and critiques coming. I appreciate being able to bounce some ideas around.
Looks like I have to dust off the John Armstrong gem, "Track Planning for Realistic Operation"
I'm just lazy enough that I don't know if I want to start from scratch on a plan. [*^_^*]

Thanks!

[tutaenui]

OK I havent built this layout, and I don't know your level of experiance, but my reactions on looking at the layout if built as designed are as follows,
(1) maybe its a bit to big for a first attempt,
(2) layout has an oldfashioned feel,
(3) Operational wise is suited to someone who just likes to watch trains run rather than
Switching
(4) duckunder or removable shelf is a pain

[killerclone]

Hi All,
I'm back in the game after a 25 year absence. [:D] I've got a quick question for the forum:
Has anyone built or has any experience with track Plan # 46 "The Jordan Valley RR" from Westcott's 101 track Plans book? [?]
I've got almost exactly that space, 9x12 and thought it looked reasonable and more importantly, buildable within several months or less.
I'm looking for any gothca's or problems with the plan before I commit any time to modifying it to suit.
Right off the bat I'd probably add an Engine servicing facility and increase the radii of the turns. The grades seem doable at 2.5% to 3%.

Anyways any suggestions are welcome.
I just picked up 3rd Planit and I'm in the process of learning the ins and outs.

Thanks!!

PS: A search of this and several other forums turned up no hits for Jordan valley or Plan 46.
I don't cross post so you'll only see me here.

Thanks Again.