Ok made a few minor adjustments. And added the double-crossover on top trackwork.
Lookin good now?
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
You almost have a double main line. Keep going.
Steve
Motley Well I just tried to use the peninsula on the right side. And it won't work. Then there's no room for the river/bridge scene. (which is my favorite scene by the way).
Well I just tried to use the peninsula on the right side. And it won't work. Then there's no room for the river/bridge scene. (which is my favorite scene by the way).
Try a mirror-reverse of the plan, with the loop and peninsula on the right. Then, you might be able to trim a few inches from the benchwork to give you more space to enter the room.
- Douglas
Motley mlehman If running clockwise, stop and then back through the loop from the turnout connecting it and the main at the top of the left side. Go through the double cross-over and suddenly your're facing counter clockwise. Now that I think of it, where you had it as a single-cross-over would've worked that way, too, so I over-thunk that one a bit The double-X-over gives you more route options, though. AHA!!!!!!! Nice, I have no idea why I kept looking at it running tains in my head, and couldn't figure it out.
mlehman If running clockwise, stop and then back through the loop from the turnout connecting it and the main at the top of the left side. Go through the double cross-over and suddenly your're facing counter clockwise. Now that I think of it, where you had it as a single-cross-over would've worked that way, too, so I over-thunk that one a bit The double-X-over gives you more route options, though.
If running clockwise, stop and then back through the loop from the turnout connecting it and the main at the top of the left side. Go through the double cross-over and suddenly your're facing counter clockwise.
Now that I think of it, where you had it as a single-cross-over would've worked that way, too, so I over-thunk that one a bit
The double-X-over gives you more route options, though.
AHA!!!!!!! Nice, I have no idea why I kept looking at it running tains in my head, and couldn't figure it out.
Rich
Alton Junction
Michael:
I doodled an alternate plan by tracing a lot of what you have already. It primarily takes advantage of having an access hatch in the loop, so I eliminated the peninsula and put the ethanol plant in front of the loop. Also, if the closet is beg enough, I put the staging tracks back there behind a backdrop, accessible from the closet. Also, there is now a wye incorporated into the loop for turning trains (albeit backing up) and the entire layout is double main line. Other scenes were relocated to accommodate.
Pick what you like from it or nothing at all..
It uses some Walthers curved turnouts..#8s in the lower left. They have a 36 outside and 32 inch inside radius. The south turnout into the flood loader in a #7.5, a 32 outside and 28 inside. Only locos and coal hoppers will be negotiating the inside part of the turnout, so a 28 inch radius s/b fine. Things might be a bit tight, so if you're interested, you might have to draw it precisely to scale. And now that I look closer, I have a crossover in the lower wye, so you can eliminate one of the crossovers on the east side.
It uses some Walthers curved turnouts..#8s in the lower left. They have a 36 outside and 32 inch inside radius. The south turnout into the flood loader in a #7.5, a 32 outside and 28 inside. Only locos and coal hoppers will be negotiating the inside part of the turnout, so a 28 inch radius s/b fine.
Things might be a bit tight, so if you're interested, you might have to draw it precisely to scale.
And now that I look closer, I have a crossover in the lower wye, so you can eliminate one of the crossovers on the east side.
Thanks Doughless, I appreciate all the help with this. But I think I like the peninsula. Being able to have the staging tracks there, as well as the ethanol plant, which takes up a lot of room.
But I like Steve's idea with the double-mainline. I extend the track down the loop, to the left side there. But it requires a crossover. Because of the loop track.
Is it ok to have a level crossing on that loop track? How will it perform? Will I have any issues?
Wheeeweeee! Got everything moved yesterday (Friday). The move went quit smooth.
Good news. When I first viewed the house, I didn’t have a tape measure when I was here first looking at the house. So I walked it of the distance. Just went digging for my tape measure (and camera). Holy smokes!
Its 15.5 ft x 12.0 ft. That’s a nice surprise. I’ll have plenty of room. The door in the corner opens inside, so that’s where the duckunder will be.
And I relocated Depot Station!
Excellent! More room is ALWAYS better than less. Looks like an useful revision. Have to think about it more to offer any useful commentary at this hour...
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Michael - check those curves, some appear to be quite tight! Also check the distance of the track to the layout edge, a couple of inches more would certainly improve the looks of the layout!
I will tell you one thing, your walking spaces look too small, you need 30" min or you will not be happy long term. How do I know this, I was a space planner once in the 1-1 world, more is better but that is the min, skinny or not.
Ya I was getting worried about the isle spaces. 2 ft just isn't enough.
I just don't have room for the Ethanol Plant. I really wanted it too. I have all the buidings purchased already.
Well that sucks. But I enlarged the mountain loop benchwork to 6 ft now. So inside curve is 33" radius, and the outside is 35".
Anyways, I moved the Island over to the right side now, and only has the two staging tracks.
Looks to have plenty of elbow room now?
Michael,
I don´t know whether you will have ample elbow room available. You have been trying to beat the system a number of times in that plan - that´s not going to work! Take more care in drawing the plan - that´s essential to avoid a headache later on.
Motley Ya I was getting worried about the isle spaces. 2 ft just isn't enough. I just don't have room for the Ethanol Plant. I really wanted it too. I have all the buidings purchased already. Well that sucks. But I enlarged the mountain loop benchwork to 6 ft now. So inside curve is 33" radius, and the outside is 35". Anyways, I moved the Island over to the right side now, and only has the two staging tracks. Looks to have plenty of elbow room now?
If the loop is to be a mountain, that means you won't be able to see the track along the wall on the backside of the mountain, right? Why not use the mountain as a viewblock and place the staging tracks back there where they parked trains won't be seen.
And as others have said, make sure your measurements and switch frogs are to scale otherwise the back and forth can be futile.
As I see it, you drew the entry door only 18 inches wide. Its probably more like 30 inches....plus another 3 or 4 inches away from the left wall to house the framing. IOW, its right edge will be right at the third verticle line from the left, and its swing will extend to almost the third horizontal line from the bottom.
MotleyLooks to have plenty of elbow room now?
As a matter of fact, looking at the aisle width from the view of elbow room might help solve some problems. You can get away with slightly narrower aisles -- to the layout edge anyway -- if the deck height is relatively high. Somewhere between about mid-bicep and should height, but ABOVE elbow height. Shoulders are wide when stationary, but it's elbow swing that defines the width of the paths we move in.
Don't know if that's work for you, but makes it easier to get under things for wiring, etc, as well as maximizing storage below. You may even be able to build a workbench under there.
There are drawbacks and you do need a high ceiling to take advantage, especially if you want decent height mountains. Reach in depth is affected, etc. If you're tall, where it ends up being will be hard on shorter visitors. Just thought it worth mentioning, you'd have to decide if it's a useful idea or not.
Sir Madog Michael, I don´t know whether you will have ample elbow room available. You have been trying to beat the system a number of times in that plan - that´s not going to work! Take more care in drawing the plan - that´s essential to avoid a headache later on.
mlehman Motley Looks to have plenty of elbow room now? As a matter of fact, looking at the aisle width from the view of elbow room might help solve some problems. You can get away with slightly narrower aisles -- to the layout edge anyway -- if the deck height is relatively high. Somewhere between about mid-bicep and should height, but ABOVE elbow height. Shoulders are wide when stationary, but it's elbow swing that defines the width of the paths we move in. Don't know if that's work for you, but makes it easier to get under things for wiring, etc, as well as maximizing storage below. You may even be able to build a workbench under there. There are drawbacks and you do need a high ceiling to take advantage, especially if you want decent height mountains. Reach in depth is affected, etc. If you're tall, where it ends up being will be hard on shorter visitors. Just thought it worth mentioning, you'd have to decide if it's a useful idea or not.
Motley Looks to have plenty of elbow room now?
I did not mean to be patronizing, but what´s the use in drawing a plan with a CAD tool if you don´t employ the main feature of it - the "sanity check" telling you whether everything will finally fit the way you want to have it?
I'm not even using CAD for this. I'm using the free version of Anyrail. I enabled the 12" grid lines. Thats all I have for size reference.
It doesn't have a "sanity check" button. Must have left it out.
Hi, may I butt in.............
My current and previous layout was built in an 11x15 room. It is around the wall, with space only for the door to open. With the door open you are presented with a 4 ft wide duckunder so as to get into the center operating area.
Both layout designs were the result of literally years of scale drawings. And both layouts presented themselves with tradeoffs. In example, for around the room running and a large engine terminal, etc., etc., I endure the duckunder and the fact that the layout is too deep to reach some areas without getting topside.
My point is, the OP seems to be well aware of these trade-offs, and he (like me) knows full well that he will live with the results (or eventually tear them out).
For what its worth, I like the design, and it looks to me like it will work out just fine.
ENJOY!
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
mobilman44 Hi, may I butt in............. My current and previous layout was built in an 11x15 room. It is around the wall, with space only for the door to open. With the door open you are presented with a 4 ft wide duckunder so as to get into the center operating area. Both layout designs were the result of literally years of scale drawings. And both layouts presented themselves with tradeoffs. In example, for around the room running and a large engine terminal, etc., etc., I endure the duckunder and the fact that the layout is too deep to reach some areas without getting topside. My point is, the OP seems to be well aware of these trade-offs, and he (like me) knows full well that he will live with the results (or eventually tear them out). For what its worth, I like the design, and it looks to me like it will work out just fine. ENJOY!
MotleyIt should be 5.5 ft. 32" x 2 = 64" = 5.333 ft.
Little more to it than doubling the radius.
Motley mobilman44 Hi, may I butt in............. My current and previous layout was built in an 11x15 room. It is around the wall, with space only for the door to open. With the door open you are presented with a 4 ft wide duckunder so as to get into the center operating area. Both layout designs were the result of literally years of scale drawings. And both layouts presented themselves with tradeoffs. In example, for around the room running and a large engine terminal, etc., etc., I endure the duckunder and the fact that the layout is too deep to reach some areas without getting topside. My point is, the OP seems to be well aware of these trade-offs, and he (like me) knows full well that he will live with the results (or eventually tear them out). For what its worth, I like the design, and it looks to me like it will work out just fine. ENJOY!
Sorry, I've just been very stressed out with real life right now. Don't mean to sound not greatful for all the help everyone here gives me. Most importantly my friend Rich.
I value every one's opinions. (well maybe except ulrich). LOL
Choops Motley It should be 5.5 ft. 32" x 2 = 64" = 5.333 ft. Little more to it than doubling the radius. Steve
Motley It should be 5.5 ft. 32" x 2 = 64" = 5.333 ft.
Thanks Steve, that helps. I think I'm not paying enough attention to detail here.
Motley I think I'm not paying enough attention to detail here.
Michael - it may be my bad command of the English language, but that´s exactly what I wanted to point out. Although 11´ by 13´ is quite a lot of room (at least from my humble point of view), a few inches off here and there can make a big difference. This is what is meant by "sanity check" - does it really fit into the space you have allocated for your layout? Have all the curves the minimum radius you need to have? Are all the switches the correct size? On double track mains, does the track have the right spacing? Are all gradients below "X" % (put in the value you don´t want to exceed)?
Track planning software will help you to answer these questions, but only if employed correctly.
Sir Madog Motley I think I'm not paying enough attention to detail here. Michael - it may be my bad command of the English language, but that´s exactly what I wanted to point out. Although 11´ by 13´ is quite a lot of room (at least from my humble point of view), a few inches off here and there can make a big difference. This is what is meant by "sanity check" - does it really fit into the space you have allocated for your layout? Have all the curves the minimum radius you need to have? Are all the switches the correct size? On double track mains, does the track have the right spacing? Are all gradients below "X" % (put in the value you don´t want to exceed)? Track planning software will help you to answer these questions, but only if employed correctly.
Hi again !
Obviously most all of us that value continuous running would love to have two reverse loops. The OP's plan "only" has one, which would necessitate a backwards run thru the loop to reverse direction a second time. Of course this is not an ideal situation, but having one reverse loop is a whole lot better than having none. Yup, I speak from experience..........
mobilman44 Hi again ! Obviously most all of us that value continuous running would love to have two reverse loops. The OP's plan "only" has one, which would necessitate a backwards run thru the loop to reverse direction a second time. Of course this is not an ideal situation, but having one reverse loop is a whole lot better than having none. Yup, I speak from experience..........
I've noticed the radius labeled on the drawings listed as 33 and 35 inches. I would strongly recommend a difference of MORE than 2.0 inches, even at those relatively generous curve radii, there is still some likihood of long cars interfering with each other on 2-inch centers. I recommend 2.0 inch centers ONLY on straight sections.
I advise minimum centers on those curves at least 2 1/4 (2.25) inches. So if your inner radius is 33 inches, the outer should be 35.25 or 35 1/4.
On my staging yard, I made sure my centers were in excess of 2.25 inches and even then it looked like longer cars were coming close to those on adjacent tracks. You might want to "mock up" some curves to test, thats the way to be sure you are safe.
Now if you assumed track centers of at least 2.25 inches, maybe I missed it but better safe than sorry!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983