interested in creating Valley Western N-scale RR from MR mag (May, 1975??)

[Anonymous]

Byron,

Thanks very much for responding. I appreciate and read with much interest all of your comments.

Looking back, my original submission was, shall we say "sparse". What I didn't mention (and I should have), is that I would be "enhancing" the plan. I am green with regard to these forums and did not know or investigate how to attach my supporting documents. The room is roughly 12 X 13 ft. So, I've increased the size of the plan to fit that space. Outer dimensions: The top of the plan (St. Gohr, Far Hills, Boppard), is 13 ft across and the left side (Queenstown) is 5-1/2 feet long and expanding the right side (Rine cliffs) to be 8-1/2 feet long. Some sections of the top (St. Gohr, Far Hills, Boppard) with regard to depth has been cut back to 1 ft and 2 feet. I apoligize for asking you to try to visualize this and will send you via private email my "plan" - which so far is just the benchwork plan in Visio 2003, and then a JPEG of the benchwork, colored in to distingui***he areas for each town and where the "river" will be. Neither document has the trackwork laid out yet. This is still bieng worked on but should be done soon.

Regarding your comments/questions:

First, yes, it will be enclosed by 3 walls - left/top/right.

Staging, I've added another "area" which is separate from the rest of the benchwork (i.e., there is a 30 inch aisle between them with a duck-under connecting the two.) The track from Rine Cliffs goes further south, onto the duck under, and onto a separate section of benchwork. This new area is to be the staging area. The duck under is necessary due to a door leaidng to a storage room which isn't used that much.

Industries: I agree, I''ll probably reduce the quantity and then increase the size of the remaining ones.

Long reach on left/top corner - yep - that is a problem, see my comments above regarding my benchwork mods - but, I'm glad you mentioned that corner. To be specifc, this will not be walk-around. And, with my benchwork being 36" deep on the sides - is this too deep - should I cut it back to 30"?

Track spacing will be more than the minimum required - both side by side and height.

I've printed out the article regaridng spurs and will read it tonight.

Again, I want to say thank you for the time, thought and effort you put into your comments. I've recently come across your website (before seeing your comments) and was plesantly surprised that "a professional" would take the time to comment!

I believe you have your email addr listed on your website and will forward you the plans.

Thanks again,
Brian Williams.

[cuyama]

QUOTE: Originally posted by skip438

Also was wondering what people thought of this plan - pros/cons?

This is plan that appears to pack a lot into the available space -- and that's one of the "pros". As usual, the Kalmbach artists did a very nice job of making the layout look appealing, but I think it might appear pretty cramped in real life.

There are some ideas in layout design that have gained popularity over the intervening decades and you might want to consider them. (I guess these would be the "cons").

First, there is no staging in the Valley Western design. Staging tracks allow the railroad to seem more realistic by allowing the appearance of connections to the rest of the world. This allows for a variety of trains, traffic types, rolling stock, etc.

The yards are quite limited in size. With no staging, the visible yards will need to both generate trains as well as hold a lot of rolling stock. It does not seem to me that there is enough yard capacity to create a satisfying amount of operation.

Many of the industries shown are quite small. Some of these are not much larger than an N scale boxcar or two. It is somewhat less believable to suggest that these tiny buildings somehow generate enough freight to fill railcars. While these small industries look OK on the trackplan, they might seem pretty "toylike" on the layout.

There is a _very_ long reach into the far corner (upper left in the trackplan). It's nearly four feet and that just seems impractical if the layout will be placed in a corner as is suggested. If you will actually have aisle space there, there would be a lot of interesting possibilities that would make better use of the space. It's even worse in the published plan as that far track is hidden beneath scenery.

I'm not sure that all of the trackwork could be built as drawn with commercially-available track. Some of the turnouts seem overly sharp and in a couple of cases the points might overlap. The 1" track-to-track spacing might also be too tight given the 11" minimum radius. (In some places, for example, Kessart and Boppard, the track-to-track spacing is drawn as even less than 1", which seems impractical.)

There are a number of switchback industry spurs that might be a little pesky to switch. These are rare on the prototype for a reason. While the number of switchback spurs is not the worst I've seen published in MR, it might be a little out-of-proportion with the real world. I wrote a little about switchback industry spurs on my website:
switchback industry spurs

The clearances for tracks crossing one another are too tight in a couple of places. Depending on the era you are planning to model, N scale needs at the very minimum 1.65" (NMRA Recommended Practice) or more. The long hidden track below Donnaburgh is climbing and the clearance will be very tight as drawn, even _before_ considering the thickness of the layout in this area.

All-in-all, an interesting concept that is probably rendered a bit optimistically in the artwork. Were you thinking of building it in the same space? Would the layout be enclosed by walls on three sides as in the original plan? Depending on your actual space, there are probably better alternatives.

Regards,

Byron

[Anonymous]

Also was wondering what people thought of this plan - pros/cons?

[Anonymous]

I'm interested in knowing if anyone has ever tried to create the Valley Western "cubicle" N-Scale RR that was designed by Robert J. Lutz in the MR May 1975 issue (Not sure if that is the right issue or not) - but it's also in the "track planning ideas" book "selected by Bob Hayden" (page 38-41).