BMMECNYC richhotrain this thread has turned circuitous. We are now talking about cirlces, so it makes sense that we would be talking in one.
richhotrain this thread has turned circuitous.
We are now talking about cirlces, so it makes sense that we would be talking in one.
Good one.
Alton Junction
richhotrainthis thread has turned circuitous.
We are now talking about circles, so it makes sense that we would be talking in one.
DSchmitt You really need to acurately lay out your plan using a layout design program. Both Xtrakcad and Scarm are free easily downloadable, contain extensive track libraries and although both have a learning curve, they are actually easy to get started with.
You really need to acurately lay out your plan using a layout design program. Both Xtrakcad and Scarm are free easily downloadable, contain extensive track libraries and although both have a learning curve, they are actually easy to get started with.
Nearly 80 replies, over 2,100 views, this thread has turned circuitous.
Rich
DSchmittYou really need to acurately lay out your plan using a layout design program. Both Xtrakcad and Scarm are free easily downloadable, contain extensive track libraries and although both have a learning curve, they are actually easy to get started with. Both will also let you check grades and "run" trains to see how the arangement works. I personally prefer Xtrakcad. It's easier for me to control track placement. However, Scarm does have at least one nice feature Xtrakcad does not have. You can place a copy of your sketch in the workspace adjust it to size to use as a guide when accurately placing the track components. In addition they are fun!
Layout desing programs do not teach basic model railroad concepts. They will allow you to create unworkable track plans, because the tracks will physically connect. Read the books.
They will give you an idea of what radius curve will actually fit in the allowable space.
You really need to acurately lay out your plan using a layout design program. Both Xtrakcad and Scarm are free easily downloadable, contain extensive track libraries and although both have a learning curve, they are actually easy to get started with. Both will also let you check grades and "run" trains to see how the arangement works.
I personally prefer Xtrakcad. It's easier for me to control track placement. However, Scarm does have at least one nice feature Xtrakcad does not have. You can place a copy of your sketch in the workspace adjust it to size to use as a guide when accurately placing the track components.
In addition they are fun!
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.
Here's my expanded and revised track plan.
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
How about a two 4x20 peninsula connected by a 4x4 bridge at one end?
cascadenorthernrr But to fit the coal/oar dumping op how deep would you say it should be?
But to fit the coal/oar dumping op how deep would you say it should be?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
cascadenorthernrr I will pick that up at my LHS next time I'm there.
I will pick that up at my LHS next time I'm there.
Good Idea
cascadenorthernrr I just ordered The Model Railroaders Guide To Coal Railroading and The Model Railroaders Guide To Steel Mills that should help, right?
I just ordered The Model Railroaders Guide To Coal Railroading and The Model Railroaders Guide To Steel Mills that should help, right?
I dont have either of those, because its not what I model. Have you gotten a copy of track planning for realistic operation? That will help more.
https://kalmbachhobbystore.com/product/book/12148
Well I really like the BR&P yard, somewhat like the setup in my drawing?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lamberts+Point+Coal+Terminal/@36.878237,-76.3267998,635m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x8313cf8c4d04b52!8m2!3d36.8774225!4d-76.3198368
A 2ft wide peninsula would probably handle the dump just fine. Check out Lamberts Point.
So how much space do you really have? To get around an 8x20, the space needs to be at least 14x26. If you have that kind of space, you can get a lot more railroad in by going along the walls plus a penninsula or two. All while leaving 3' or better aisles to get around in. Think in 2x4 and 2x8 sections, not 4x8. To build a giant 8x20 island, you will need to leave plenty of liftout sections to be able to pop up and access the inner areas. Unless you are really tall or have orangutang arms, the best you can reach in is 24-30" unless you build the layout very low, and even then you risk damaging scenery, structures, and trains by leaning over them.
Think in terms of narrow benchwork - it doesn;t even all have to be the sme width. In an area where the track is running through the countryside, 12" wide is even plenty for double track and trackside scenery. 18" gives plenty of room for a trackside industy. Yards and other busy areas can expand to 2' wide. All of it within easy ready, and you will be able to walk along and follow your train rather than operate it from a static control panel.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
It's 8x20 in two 4x20 sections.
What is the actual size of that? 4x12? Or it that 8 feet wide? Because if it's only 4' wide I hope you're really doign this in N scale, because all that will never fit in a usable radius in only 4' wide in HO.
If you truly have that much space, consider a donut shaped plan with the center mostly open for access. You will be able to use a larger curve radius and yet keep the sections narrow enough to be able to reach everything.
With all due respect to the OP, isn't a lot of this just fantasizing? It's OK to fantasize about a possible track plan, I do it myself. But if one really wants to build a layout, then drawings cannot be done freehand but, rather, such drawings need to be drawn on quadrille paper, or something like that, to ensure that the drawings are made to scale. Nothing more than a quick glance at the freehand drawing illustrated here would draw the conclusion that it is not doable unless track is laid on a much larger footprint.
cascadenorthernrrSchuylkill Iron Works its 4x21 and it appealed to me because the mainline is pretty long comparatively to other layouts of similiar size. So I was thinking that I could start with a 4x8 section then do another and then add two 2x4 sections at each end! And after I have run it I can begin stage two! I build a coal/ore dump like the BR&P Yard at Genesse Dock in another 4x20 section
If you had that much overall space, why would you limit yourself to four-foot-wide sections that constrain the minimum radius in HO? There are always much more efficient designs that aren't limited by the stock sizes of building materials.
Edit: Now seeing your sketch (which unfortunately likely wouldn't fit exactly as you hope when drawn to scale), how would you reach the center of that (assuming) eight-foot-wide table? A 12’X24’ space large enough to hold this layout and minimal aisles would support a much more accessible design.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
And here's my track plan. I just revised it.
dehusmanIF you were going to build one on a "4x8", the A&S Gateway yard in East St. Louis would be the prototype
And it would be a BIG "4X8". That's about 1½ miles by ½ mile. So in HO a room maybe 100 feet by 40 feet wide, plus room for aisles. With some compression, say 60' X 30'. But then you'd need to add staging to create the traffic in and out of the yard.
As Dave H. and others have been saying on this thread, real hump yards are huge (even the "small" ones) and pose many physical problems in modeling.
A quick google search found this.
JustJimI too was thinking wouldn't it be neat to have a hump yard on my yet to be designed layout. Living in Arizona, I am "Basemently Challenged" and real estate inside my house is at a premium, so I get the ever popular 4 X 8 railroad. The first thoughts were for an oval for continuous running, and a hump yard in the middle. From what I have been reading, that may not be a great idea.
Hump yards are large, large yards. If you have to switch hundreds of cars an op session they might be an answer. On a 4x8 there isn't enough room.
This doesn't address the whole issue of physics on how the cars roll and how far. Yes you can make one. Just realize it is a "graduate" level project.
IF you were going to build one on a "4x8", the A&S Gateway yard in East St. Louis would be the prototype.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5915386,-90.1402264,2660m/data=!3m1!1e3
I should clarify that stage two is the hump yard replacement!
Congratulations Jim on your first post and welcome to the forum! I'm seriously considering dropping the hump idea but as a replacement I found a more simplistic solution. In the Track Plan Database there is a plan called the Schuylkill Iron Works its 4x21 and it appealed to me because the mainline is pretty long comparatively to other layouts of similiar size. So I was thinking that I could start with a 4x8 section then do another and then add two 2x4 sections at each end! And after I have run it I can begin stage two! I build a coal/ore dump like the BR&P Yard at Genesse Dock in another 4x20 section that buts up against the original layout and the mainline gets rerouted through the new section and I could even add a coal/ore mine at one end if space permits! I will post a scan of my purposed track plan (it's not perfect and it was drawn completely freehand) and any suggestions/revisions are welcome and needed.
This is my first posting to this forum, so be gentle.
I was going to ask this same question. I have a soft spot in my heart, or is it my head, for hump yards. My first job out of college was writing programming for an automated hump yard, for a Great Metropolitan Railroad (SP). We were automating the Colton Ca hump yard.
I too was thinking wouldn't it be neat to have a hump yard on my yet to be designed layout. Living in Arizona, I am "Basemently Challenged" and real estate inside my house is at a premium, so I get the ever popular 4 X 8 railroad. The first thoughts were for an oval for continuous running, and a hump yard in the middle. From what I have been reading, that may not be a great idea.
Jim
Robert,You're welcome..When I worked on the Chessie(C&O) that yard was full of cars,the car shops was working 24/7,there was a roundhouse,several yard crews,a 24/7 RR YMCA cafeteria and a train ln/out of the yard every 15-30 minutes.
Today its a shell of its former past.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE A late added PS. I found this 13 minute drone flyover of the Russell yard.Excuse me while I go and have a good cry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh7se5gqxpk
A late added PS. I found this 13 minute drone flyover of the Russell yard.Excuse me while I go and have a good cry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh7se5gqxpk
Hey Larry,
Sorry about the crying business, but Holy Cow, what a great video! Thanks for the link.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Just something I came across while looking in the May 1989 MRR, and Tankcarsrule's (Bobby P.) "Model of the Month" tank car for transporting Kymene, is an article about making cars move realistically after it leaves the hump, and makes it's way into the bowl.
The article is by Paul Mallery, and it's a system that was built for the Model RR Club of Union, NJ.
It uses a rail, that slides back and forth, and keeps the car moving at a realitistic speed.
It's worth the read, if you have the issue, or the archives sub., and your interested in yards, hump yards, and kicking on a flat yard.
Just thought I'd pass it along in this thread.
Mike.
My You Tube