For the moment, I'm still leaning toward one of SteinJr's drawings, because he has a way with XtrkCad that I don't. The only change would be omitting the runaround.
I used to be clueless, but i've turned that around 360 degrees.
VunderBob The (unspoken) motivation for the majority of the revenue in the middle is my desire to have some decent track, and a reason to have some crummy and weedy track in contrast to represent part of the line where there is less traffic and less maintenance. That's the real life Penn Central from my youth speaking up.
The (unspoken) motivation for the majority of the revenue in the middle is my desire to have some decent track, and a reason to have some crummy and weedy track in contrast to represent part of the line where there is less traffic and less maintenance. That's the real life Penn Central from my youth speaking up.
Sounds interesting. Have you revised a plan from the first one you posted?
- Douglas
VunderBob What really piqued my interest is the idea of dropping the runaround in the middle. I sort of figured that any railroad with that much traffic coming from the heavy hitters would have a runaround to make life easier for the crews. I will ponder that some more...
What really piqued my interest is the idea of dropping the runaround in the middle. I sort of figured that any railroad with that much traffic coming from the heavy hitters would have a runaround to make life easier for the crews. I will ponder that some more...
Ok. Lets pursue this. I think Paulus and I are saying the same things here BTW.
I think if you put the "heavy hitters", those industries that generate the most traffic, at the end of the line, rather than the middle, your trains will tend run along the entire layout, instead of using half of it. I know on the LNAC, the auto plant was the major traffic generator and was located in the middle of the line, but you are trying to build a layout that is as fun as possible, not necessarily accurate.
IMHO, a common unreality that many modelers build into their layouts is the idea that every facing switch has to be attached to a runaround. No. Real railroads find turnouts and runarounds expensive and will try to minimize them as much as possible. Check Google earth. Many industries along the line have their spur that is in the middle of nowhere relative to the nearest runaround. It becomes a trailing switch at some point in the run.
You know, it is perfectly acceptable to drag a car past its destination in order to find a runaround, then switch the industry it just past on the way back, since it then becomes a trailing switch. It involves less track and less back and forth moves. If you had a runaround for every facing switch, your operating session might consist of running a few feet, then doing a series of short back and forth motions to run around the train a couple of times, then head a few more feet, and do the same thing, etc., etc.
I would have only two runarounds on a layout that size, both about the same length and long enough to accommodate your longest train.
Just something to think about.
hi,
you never responded to it, i'll try again. The trainlentgh you intend to use is rather important, and the length of at least some of the passing tracks should be able hold a whole train. The length of the handle should be appropriate as well.
Imagine your train is arriving with 6 cars in tow, and you have 5 cars to pick up from local industries. At the end of the session you will have your 5 cars between your engine and the car you still have to set out; unless your passing siding can hold these 5 cars. Then you have to run around your consist before returning home. You were talking about trains between 5 and 12 cars long while having sidings not able to accomodate trains of that length.
IMHO you are thinking about nice looking trackplans, not really thinking bout how to switch that many cars in one train. If the lift-out is omitted you could have longish passing sidings near the junction and one neer the car-plant. The spurs in the middle could be served on the way up and back, working the trailing spurs only.
Paul
Doughless, I gave this a day's thought so I wouldn't sound rash when I replied.
The 8X10 will be set up in a 15X15 room, and I have the luxury of orienting the layout as it suits me. I can be sure of having the room I need for a drop-leaf cassette arm, at least while I'm in this house.
If I don't have room for the swing up, plan B is a Rix Rail-It straight into the interchange. I'm not bent out of shape about the liftout vs. the cassette, because my concept is the interchange cars are waiting for the crew to show up from town. Set up, then go inside and put in the liftout. Plan C is 50" from rail tops to floor, which is enough to duck under anyway.
VunderBob I'm partial to Steinjr's first design, showing the centerlines. I have a switchlist generator that I wrote, and I use it to model traffic. Most summer length trains work out to be 5-7 cars, and with the fall rush for the elevator, train lengths can gust to 11-12. By design and intent, most of the traffic goes to the industrial complex in the upper right corner.
I'm partial to Steinjr's first design, showing the centerlines.
I have a switchlist generator that I wrote, and I use it to model traffic. Most summer length trains work out to be 5-7 cars, and with the fall rush for the elevator, train lengths can gust to 11-12. By design and intent, most of the traffic goes to the industrial complex in the upper right corner.
Good thinking, but look at this.....
Step back and look and general flow of the trains.
With a point to point layout of that rather small size, I would want to maximize the run as much as possible and as often as possible. If you are going to have the main action in the NE corner, I would seriously consider operating the layout in a clockwise fashion. As it is now, most of your action will just run from the interchange in the SE to one other module in the NE and across a poorly sceniced liftout at that (no offense, its the nature of the beast). You won't maximize the use of the modules along the W side if you operate counterclockwise.
As long as we are just using the LNAC as inspiration, the exact location of the industries are not that important. Just put old Corydon in the NE section and have your main traffic generating industries there; the auto plant as a backdrop building and a spur back to the NW for a grain elevator (which doesn't exist on the LNAC anyway). One long-ish runaround at Corydon. Any occasionally switched industries you want along the line can just have a spur off of the main with no runaround. Their cars can simply be dragged to Corydon before/after they are switched and as part of the return train. Operate clockwise. One runaround at Corydon and one at the interchange. The excursion train will likely never run at the same time as the frieght, so there is no need for a passing siding along the route. You'll never use the liftout for regular ops.
How would you handle the cassette staging and the liftout anyway? Pop them in and out along with the liftout each time you returned to the pit? Seems like a pain. The liftout should always be out if you are going to use the cassette staging idea., IMO, which means you wouldn't want to need ito have it in for regular ops.
I would follow that general concept and design the specific track arrangements from there.
Yes, solo operator.
hi Bob
the length of the proposed trains, between 5 and 11 cars (between 3 and 7 feet) doesn't match with the length of your passing sidings.
Is your layout meant to be for one operator only?
Doughless I think I know what you mean by using the interchange as staging: Every time the NS takes cars from the interchange, you roll the cars onto a cassette and when the NS places cars on the interchange you roll the cars from another cassette; instead of having "on layout" staging, where the NS loco pops in and out behind something. That's a lot of work, and potential for handling mishaps, if you have a lot of cars to move.
I think I know what you mean by using the interchange as staging: Every time the NS takes cars from the interchange, you roll the cars onto a cassette and when the NS places cars on the interchange you roll the cars from another cassette; instead of having "on layout" staging, where the NS loco pops in and out behind something. That's a lot of work, and potential for handling mishaps, if you have a lot of cars to move.
I agree.
Personally, I would have prefer to model a "live" interchange - have the NS arrive with cars, pick up the outbound cars already at the junction, leave inbound cars and then take the outbound cars back into hidden staging.
Can be modeled fairly easily:
And pretty much provide a operation session or job of it's own with some switching to pick up outbounds and leave inbounds.
It also does not make it necessary to pop into and out of the layout to roll cars off the layout onto a cassette, or from a cassette onto the layout.
But Bob seeming wants to only model the short line, not a live interchange.
Smile, Stein
rrebell I like your plan, being a wide duckunder is going to be a pain so the domino at the top with the least track I would make only 12"deep.
I like your plan, being a wide duckunder is going to be a pain so the domino at the top with the least track I would make only 12"deep.
If you re-examine the post you are responding to, you will note that it says:
VunderBob The right side will be a liftout, and I've already decided to move the elevator to the top section to accomodate the liftout.
The right side will be a liftout, and I've already decided to move the elevator to the top section to accomodate the liftout.
Which is why the industry tracks on the right side and top right corner was changed in my two sketches posted here - to make fewer tracks on the section on the right side, turning the right side into a narrow lift-out with with just one track.
:smack: I answered half of the questions. Train length is 5-7, so assume there's an equal number spotted. Motive power will be a pair of GE 44 Tonners, although at some point they may be 'retired' and replaced with GP-9s. Or the line may be sold to the Southern, and a single GP-38 works for that session.
VunderBob There will be a drop leaf at the blunt end of the SOU main to hold cassettes so stock can be moved on and off. The interchange area will function as staging, although it does not look like a standard staging yard. The excursion train is one Light Pacific and two coaches, so the runarounds should be long enough for making a pass.
There will be a drop leaf at the blunt end of the SOU main to hold cassettes so stock can be moved on and off. The interchange area will function as staging, although it does not look like a standard staging yard.
The excursion train is one Light Pacific and two coaches, so the runarounds should be long enough for making a pass.
It would be interesting to know what plan you are currently talking about, your original drawing or Stein's tweaked version.
It would also be interesting to know how many cars and locomotives will be on the layout at any one time. I think I know what you mean by using the interchange as staging: Every time the NS takes cars from the interchange, you roll the cars onto a cassette and when the NS places cars on the interchange you roll the cars from another cassette; instead of having "on layout" staging, where the NS loco pops in and out behind something. That's a lot of work, and potential for handling mishaps, if you have a lot of cars to move.
Will each train have their own cassette that's fiddled and stored when not in use?
VunderBob This thread and trackplan are the result on a sidebar conversation I've been having with Steinjr. I snarfed a couple of switching plans he had on a website, and arranged them to suit me and what I want to build. Before you go hog wild with constructive criticism, bear in mind this is a rough draft I did in about an hour this afternoon with a pen, pencil, and old fashioned template. In my mind, this plan is an incomplete thought. The benchwork sections are 2X4 dominoes, the overall size is 8X10, and while it shows a continuous run, the CR will not be normally used. The right side will be a liftout, and I've already decided to move the elevator to the top section to accomodate the liftout. Some domino depths will be reduced. Theme is a southern Indiana shortline that approximates the Louisville, New Albany, and Corydon Railroad as it existed in the early 90s. Have at it, trackplan mavens!
This thread and trackplan are the result on a sidebar conversation I've been having with Steinjr. I snarfed a couple of switching plans he had on a website, and arranged them to suit me and what I want to build.
Before you go hog wild with constructive criticism, bear in mind this is a rough draft I did in about an hour this afternoon with a pen, pencil, and old fashioned template. In my mind, this plan is an incomplete thought. The benchwork sections are 2X4 dominoes, the overall size is 8X10, and while it shows a continuous run, the CR will not be normally used.
The right side will be a liftout, and I've already decided to move the elevator to the top section to accomodate the liftout. Some domino depths will be reduced. Theme is a southern Indiana shortline that approximates the Louisville, New Albany, and Corydon Railroad as it existed in the early 90s.
Have at it, trackplan mavens!
Although the HOG is often cited, one of the weaknesses of the design (besides the all-from-one-sheet-of-plywood gimmick) comes into play when it is used unchanged for other layout concepts. That is the lost opportunity for staging.
Especially if some portion of a "doughnut" style design is to be against one or more walls, it's extremely easy to add a few staging tracks along the wall(s) behind the visible scene.
This can also be done when the "doughnut" is free-standing, but if there is enough room for aisles all the way around, a number of staging options become possible.
Overlapping staging with visible tracks is always a good way to expand the effectiveness of the available space.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
hi vdBob
about the length of the passing sidings i would not be that sure. But underlying is a more involving problem; you are not giving enough specific information. A light pacific and two coaches, by accident i possess a SF valley fly-er and two rather short coaches, the length totals over 30" . Non of your passing sidings is long enough. In Stein's design two out of three are long enough.
IMHO you'd better use the yard for sorting out and getting out the way purposes, and use the drop-leave/cassette for staging. You will need that space so much, all those spurs that have to be served and have to be emptied first before you can push fresh cars in.
SmilePaul
Hi Bob,
i still do not understand th choice you made. Staging a passenger train and freight cars is an issue; should it be done on the layout or could a cassette or a extention be an answer?
And are the passing sidings long enough?
Anyway, a small staging area could easily be added to the design; especially if you are willing to accept a 8' 6" x 10 size.
Smile
I forgot about the space. I don't have a drawing, but I have a 15X15 room that I have to share with other activities that this will go in. The design is meant to be a portable layout for that reason, plus we are in a rented house and will be moving yet again sometime in the next few years. I wanted something that will fit within the customary 9X11 bedroom for the next place I toss my hat.
Yeah, it does resemble the HOG. There's only so much you can do with an oval of that size... <wink>
The three tracks you mention are there for switching runarounds and a bit of on-line storage. The prototype is about 10 miles in length, and did not drag everything end to end. My crew works out of the left hand side, runs clockwise to the junction, and returns. In my world, once the industries are worked in the upper right, the crew will leave the outbounds there while they head back to town. When they return to the junction, they pick up along the way the outbounds that were set out.
Besides, an excursion train will run on an irregular basis and have to pass somewhere.
hi Bob,
not sure about it, you might have been going through it with Stein, but a drawing of your space would be a welcome start.
Your plan does remind me at the HOG. The most important question i have so far: why do you have 3 very short passing sidings since this is a one train at a time layout? Or to be more specific, could the station at the south side be transformed into a yard?
At the same time the passing siding at the west could probably made longer, around the corner towards the yard.
VunderBob The layout is not strictly the LNAC, but the LNAC is a heavy influence; my version will be the Old Capitol Railroad. After all, in an alternate universe I can get away with adding a non-existent elevator. <wink> I would have loved to make the CR connection over the liftout, and a different plan I was previously working had that. However, with the space available and the desire to use Stein's 2 layouts as elements preclude it. The lift out will span somewhere between 24 and 30 inches. I also plan on starting my benchwork by Christmas.
The layout is not strictly the LNAC, but the LNAC is a heavy influence; my version will be the Old Capitol Railroad. After all, in an alternate universe I can get away with adding a non-existent elevator. <wink>
I would have loved to make the CR connection over the liftout, and a different plan I was previously working had that. However, with the space available and the desire to use Stein's 2 layouts as elements preclude it. The lift out will span somewhere between 24 and 30 inches.
I also plan on starting my benchwork by Christmas.
Yes, I understand. My layout originated from another Indiana shortline, the Dubois County RR. But after many incremental changes, it really looks nothing like it now. But its a better layout than it was, which is sort of the whole point.
A 30 inch lift out seems manageable.
Hey guys,
I think the layout is a nice plan. Having seen the LNAC in the flesh, its also a good representation.
Basically, the railroad runs from Corydon Junction south several miles to the large auto parts plant, where the engine facilities are also located (you don't have them modeled). This is just north of I-64. The line crosses I-64 and heads to old Corydon where a very old large furniture factory used to operate (not sure if it still was in the 90's, no matter) and a depot where old "Betty Sue" was parked for a long time after it was retired.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoPicture.aspx?id=126664
There is also an industry that sits just south of I-64 on the way to old Corydon.
Based on the way the LNAC runs, I-64 would be in between your grain elevator (I don't think the LNAC had one) and the industry that's at the NW of the layout. Overall, your plan is a nice representation and I like how the plan flows from a model railroad layout perspective.
If you wanted to be a bit more accurate, I would use the grain elevator space for engine shops and put I-64 under the tracks just to the left of them.
If I was designing this from scratch, since the LNAC departs Corydon Junction the opposite way you have it, I would consider reversing the flow of the layout from counterclockwise to clockwise, with the auto parts plant and engine shops along the W wall (cheat to the SW or NW depending on how the spacing flowed) and old Corydon in the NE. Since you will operate as a point to point and rarely continuously, I would try to put the unused CR link on the lift out section, that way you hardly ever have to deal with it putting it in and it more naturally separates the junction scene from old Corydon. Could you have a smaller lift out than the one Stein currently has? I would also consider trying to angle the NS main line and junction up the E wall as I shoved both more to the E/SE, which you might do if you had a smaller lift out. Maybe expand your 2x4 module size there a bit for the one that's used for E/SE part of the junction.
Hope you plan evolves into an actual build.
Doug
Mmmm - I forgot that one point for Bob was to try to keep each section to 4x2 feet (or smaller). If we had the tracks for the industry in the upper right hand corner come off the top, so we don't need that turnout at the little peninsula in the upper right, that would work better.
Some other minor tweaks - making the sidings a little longer, moving turnouts to avoid section boundaries, slanting tracks a little at the junction, and working in a hidden staging track for the connecting railroad at the junction along the bottom.
SteinJr made the change I was going to suggest in his version.
The only thing I could think to add is if it is going to be operated point to point from the left bottom corner to bottom center then one could extend the interchange yard tracks across the "barrier" and work it as a loads in empties out arrangment.
Looks good to me.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
I couldn't resist doodling a little more on Bob's basic idea to see how things worked out in terms of train lengths, and industry lengths and stuff like that.
Here is a rough sketch in XtrkCad of Bob's core idea, with a few changes:
The continuous run connection in the lower left hand corner (under the overpass) is not used normally - it is a point to point out-and-back layout from the junction (along the lower wall), counterclockwise past a couple of industries in the upper right hand corner, and finally to a town in the lower left hand corner, before returning in the opposite direction.
Cars shown are 40' cars. Train lengths would be fairly short - 5-8 cars, only one train running at a time.
Other proposals or suggestions?