Making the link to the new thread clickable:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/261849.aspx
...and locking the old one.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
The new thread is: The Cascade Northern R.R. Mining-Logging Branch
Heres the link.
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
cascadenorthernrr Ok I reworked the plan again to accomodate larger locos and rolling stock in the transition era.
Ok I reworked the plan again to accomodate larger locos and rolling stock in the transition era.
Now you need to learn to think vertically since you have tracks on multiple levels.
For example your loop on the return from the coal dock. Look at where it connects back to the yard. It goes under the inside main and then about a foot or less away connects into the same level as the main. That would create impossible vertical curves, that would be so steep, it would not be a case of whether an engine could pull a train up, but would be so steep an engine would bottom out or catch the pilot sheets on the track and cars would uncouple.
Take a sheet of plywood, cut it into three 16" x 8 ft pieces and then cut one of those into two 4 ft pieces. Assemble them in a big "square", 80" wide and 96" long with a big hole in the middle. That will allow you to put 24-30" radius tracks around it, which will allow your T1 to operate nicely.
You can choose to operate it from the center or operate it from the outside.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
One way you could do this is to build the published plan but WITHOUT the continuous loop - make it narrower, and put a temporary staging yard on each end. Operate it like the industry it is - there's a LOT of switching in a steel plant. Later add on and go around the walls to add a continuous loop as well as other scenery and industries.
That PRR T1 MIGHT make it around 22" radius but not very well. You'll want closer to 30" radius to run that loco. Which means giving up on the idea of 4' wide sheets of wood. Again, around the walls in a 16x16 area can get you a LOT of layout, with nice wide curves for running plus plenty of room for various industries. Steel takes a lot of space - one way you can cut that down is make the main mill just a backgrop and have some of the tracks for switching materials in and out, saving on the bulk of all those structures.
Do pick up Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation, and particularly read the section on the 'squares' method. If you have access to the MR Archive you can also read his original articles ont he topic in old issues, offhand I forget the exact ones. The squares method defines what fits into a unit called a square, the size of which is determined by things like your minimum radius and so forth. If you divide your space into squares instead of feet and inches, you can reliably draw a plan that will fit using pencil and paper, even if you don;t draw the turnouts and curves exactly to scale - as long as you limit yourself to what fits in a square, it should work in practice even if it doesn't look pretty.
I actually prefer the older edition of TPfRO because there is more detail on the evolution of a design in that chapter, some of it was left out to make room for the modern railroading addition. It's quite an interesting plan and shows you what you can get in a fairly limited space. It's not perfect but it may also give you some ideas on getting decent curve radius in your space.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
cascadenorthernrr I will be creating another thread for that idea in the layout forum here in the morning I will post the name and a link here so all of you can find it. And I'd like to thank you all for your help and suggestions, my biggest downfall has always been setting my sights too high, going for the highdive first in a way. So if you all would please continue having patience with me as I try to find the right layout for me I would appreciate it.
I will be creating another thread for that idea in the layout forum here in the morning I will post the name and a link here so all of you can find it. And I'd like to thank you all for your help and suggestions, my biggest downfall has always been setting my sights too high, going for the highdive first in a way. So if you all would please continue having patience with me as I try to find the right layout for me I would appreciate it.
Once you start building a layout, or simply start laying track, experience will trump all of this back and forth about what works and what doesn't.
I liken this to golf, my other passion. I can read all of the golf magazines cover to cover, memorize all of the golf tips, watch YouTube videos on the proper golf swing, stand in front of a mirror trying out the latest recommended swing sequence. Then, I get out to the course, the practice range, and I re-evaluate what I think that I learned from all of the foregoing actions and recommendations.
Rich
Alton Junction
To the OP.........
Nothing wrong with having your "sights too high", as long as one realizes what is "reasonably" attainable and what is not.
Curious.......many of your posts are late at night (per my central standard clock). Where do you live - west coast, Hawaii, or ???
Being 16, I assume you are in the later years of high school. Do you have college in mind, and/or a major or career path?
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Ok maybe I'll just shelf the whole steel mill/coal-ore dock. And just build a mine oriented layout but I'm stumped I just don't have a knack for trackplanning which stinks but anyway I found this really great thread the mount coffin & Columbia River in N scale and I like the idea of simple mountain railroading. I could have a mainline that runs in an oval around the layout with a mining and logging branch have an interchange yard small town and that's it no myriad of structures and track no massive coal/ore docks just simple railroading with great scenery.
I really like steel for some reason. Here's a PDF I found. And iron is mined in the west too, right? Also how was coal handled on the west coast? I mean in small amounts like at Genesee dock.
https://www.steel.org/Making%20Steel/~/media/Files/AISI/Making%20Steel/2010_SteelPlant_NorthAmerica_HypocycloidVersion6.ashx
Your sketch looks like it is 12' x 16'. If you put that in a 16' x 16 ft room you would have a 2' inaccessible aisle on each side. It's important to know the exact space you have. Is your approximate 16' x 16' the actual room dimension, or a space allocation in a larger room? Folks are being very patient and trying to help you, but they need to know the specific details of your space.
Given your railroad's name (presumably in the Pacific Northwes) and your desire for mountainous mainline running, the whole concept of the steel mill seems out of place. Why not look into a copper smelter like in Anaconda/Butte, Montana, or Trail, British Columbia.
Ray
I can use a 16x16 (thats a round about number) space.
cascadenorthernrrOk thanks. My main interest is running trains on a long mainline and mountain scenery. I just got a BLI PRR T-1 that is limited to 22" radius minimum. And I would like the capability to expand if I want to.
So none of that works with the SIW as published.
cascadenorthernrrThis of course would be a 4x8.
Why limit yourself to a stock building material size? Don't fear the saw.
I guess you're just not going to answer the basic question: what is the size and arrangement of your currently available space?
I don't think that there is any more I can do to help -- good luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Ok thanks. My main interest is running trains on a long mainline and mountain scenery. I just got a BLI PRR T-1 that is limited to 22" radius minimum. And I would like the capability to expand if I want to. This of course would be a 4x8.
What is the size and arrangement of your currently available space? I don’t think you’ve ever answered that, and it matters. For a younger person, life will entail many changes in the coming years. Can you be assured of an 8-foot-wide, 25-foot-long space in the next few years – it will take a while to build something this large and a long time to scratchbuild the structures (which mostly aren't off-the-shelf footprints).
cascadenorthernrrWhat I want to do is build the SIW as is and then after I am finished begin stage two which is the rest of the layout. Would that be a good idea?
Not to me, but that’s just a personal opinion based on my experience. Every layout is a reflection of the builder’s unique interests and circumstances. Outside of that context, any published layout may not be satisfying to someone else. There’s nothing magical about a published track plan.
According to the article in the March 2008 MR, the original builder of that layout was interested in scratchbuilding steel and other heavy industry structures of the early 1900s (when locos and rolling stock were smaller than in later eras). From your other posts, this doesn’t seem to match your interests. The tight curves and turnouts in this plan as drawn will limit what you can run on it in later phases.
Because he started with an HO 4X8, the original builder was a bit hamstrung as he added to it. As noted many times in this and your other threads, if you have enough space right now (and in the immediate future) for this big rectangle and its aisles, you certainly have room for a different layout that wouldn’t be so restrictive of the rolling stock that could run on it.
But if you don’t have that space now or in the immediate future, in my humble opinion you’d be much better off with a smaller layout that offered a broader variety of opportunities and challenges (such as building grades) and could be built to the point of running trains and completing some structures and scenery before you move on to college or other later pursuits.
cascadenorthernrrAlso since I am horrible at track planning could you make a rough sketch of what you are suggesting?
Sorry, not able to help there. Perhaps someone else will, but I encourage you (and them) to consider what best meets your interests before going too far down the road with this specific (and specialized) layout.
What I want to do is build the SIW as is and then after I am finished begin stage two which is the rest of the layout. Would that be a good idea? Also since I am horrible at track planning could you make a rough sketch of what you are suggesting?
Note that the Schuylkill Iron Works includes a 15" radius mainline curve and has lots of track perilously close to the edge of the benchwork as drawn. Breaking out of the "sacred sheet" four-foot-width straitjacket would help this plan a lot and solve those problems. Interest would be added by including some spurs switched in the opposite direction (which would suggest the addition of at least one double-ended siding).
Here's a thought . . . why not just build the Schuylkill Iron Works? Exactly as designed, exactly as drawn, exactly as published. A great learning opportunity. Headaches have been long since solved. Errors, omissions, inconsistencies . . . none. A worthwhile use of time, in my opinion.
Robert
EDIT Uh-oh . . . DSchmitt typed two minutes faster than I. His opinion is sound as well. Published plans might have discrepancies. I say copy the essense of the Schuylkill Iron Works.
LINK to SNSR Blog
cuyama cascadenorthernrr Now back to the plan what other "unworkables" are in my plan? Draw it to scale, using accurate templates of the turnouts to be used, calculating grades (including transitions from level-to-grade and back), incorporating the actual lengths of the cars and locomotives that you plan to use, allowing for sufficient and consistent track-to-track clearances, maintaining adequate space from the centerlines of track to the edges of the benchwork, etc., and you will find the unworkable areas for yourself. If you don't yet know how to do those things, study the references others have suggested. Talking about things is easy. Doing things with care and accuracy is more rewarding. Good luck.
cascadenorthernrr Now back to the plan what other "unworkables" are in my plan?
Draw it to scale, using accurate templates of the turnouts to be used, calculating grades (including transitions from level-to-grade and back), incorporating the actual lengths of the cars and locomotives that you plan to use, allowing for sufficient and consistent track-to-track clearances, maintaining adequate space from the centerlines of track to the edges of the benchwork, etc., and you will find the unworkable areas for yourself.
If you don't yet know how to do those things, study the references others have suggested.
Talking about things is easy. Doing things with care and accuracy is more rewarding. Good luck.
I would add that while published plans can be used as a guide. Even copying them exactly may not always work. Many have never been built so are not tested, or they use track componets that are not readily available, or a brand you don't want to use, or are available but unreliable, or are custom designs by the builder. Even using a different brand of switches can make a big difference in what will fit, even when their geometery is close.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
cascadenorthernrr Thank you. Now back to the plan what other "unworkables" are in my plan?
Thank you. Now back to the plan what other "unworkables" are in my plan?
What is the minimum radius you are shooting for with this layout?
What are you planning on turning on the Wye at the top left?
What is the length of the longest locomotive you might want to put in that roundhouse?
Is the room that this layout in the size of the outside of the layout, or can you walk around all sides?
If the room is the same size of the layout, how do you plan to reach to the outside edges to clean track, correct derailments, couple uncouple cars...?
Many of your turnouts are not drawn to scale.
cascadenorthernrrNow back to the plan what other "unworkables" are in my plan?
Draw it to scale, using accurate templates of the specific turnouts to be used, calculating grades (including transitions from level-to-grade and back), incorporating the actual lengths of the cars and locomotives that you plan to use, allowing for sufficient and consistent track-to-track clearances, maintaining adequate space from the centerlines of track to the edges of the benchwork, etc., and you will find the unworkable areas for yourself.
Edit: In my humble opinion, you were on a better course a while back (March 3) for an experience that would be more achievable and provide a chance to build some skills.
cascadenorthernrrI think I am going to build a version of one of the MRR Project layouts.
cascadenorthernrr I am a paper and pencil guy so there is no need for you guys to be debating which method of track planning is best. Do what you enjoy. T[here are a ;ot of aspects to Model Railroading and it's supposed to be fun.
I am a paper and pencil guy so there is no need for you guys to be debating which method of track planning is best. Do what you enjoy. T[here are a ;ot of aspects to Model Railroading and it's supposed to be fun.
OK. Just pointing out that the computer is a useful tool that could help you come up with a more accurate, more buildable design. There is no best. Do what you enjoy. Model railroading is supposed to be fun.
cascadenorthernrr I am a paper and pencil guy so there is no need for you guys to be debating which method of track planning is best.
I am a paper and pencil guy so there is no need for you guys to be debating which method of track planning is best.
BMMECNYC DSchmitt One actually can learn more by using the computer, than by using paper and pencil alone. Except the computer doesnt teach you basic design concepts. You can draw a perfectly rendered unusable plan in 1 afternoon. This also assumes that the turnouts are properly drawn in the computer program, and that the information used to make the components was accurate (this is not always the case).
DSchmitt One actually can learn more by using the computer, than by using paper and pencil alone.
Except the computer doesnt teach you basic design concepts. You can draw a perfectly rendered unusable plan in 1 afternoon.
This also assumes that the turnouts are properly drawn in the computer program, and that the information used to make the components was accurate (this is not always the case).
True, but computer is more accurate than paper and pencil alone.
As far as leaning concepts, one needs to read the books and magazines and blogs and websites to see what others have learned and done. Also visit withand talk to model railroaders if possible. In my 1000+ book library more than 40 are specifically on trackplans and layout design (dating from the 1950's though current) and numerious other books with chapters on the subject. I also have many books that show prototype track arragements and many that discuss operations (both model and prototype).
Kinda sounds like a lot of work, but I enjoy it.
There are several good free programs, so the cost is even less than paper and drawing materials.
BMMECNYC DSchmitt True, but they give a pretty good idea of what will fit (inclusing yard and industry layouts, structures and scenery). They can prevent many costly mistakes before commiting to actual building. So will a compass, ruler and graph paper.
DSchmitt True, but they give a pretty good idea of what will fit (inclusing yard and industry layouts, structures and scenery). They can prevent many costly mistakes before commiting to actual building.
So will a compass, ruler and graph paper.
Two words: art gum eraser. About the size of a small block of cheese. And a decent drafting brush, of course.
DSchmittTrue, but they give a pretty good idea of what will fit (inclusing yard and industry layouts, structures and scenery). They can prevent many costly mistakes before commiting to actual building.
I have Atlas TPS and I do NOT like using it I have tried but it just isn't for me.