Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Design a dbl-deck layout for installation in its own Hand-House shed

22441 views
99 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, August 20, 2017 8:49 PM

 

 Decided to draw a few loops on the floor of the shed just to explore the possibilities. Those loops are 48" in diameter. And the center loop is offset over to the left of the shed's floor, thus leaving more room for the yard/ city /roundhouse scene on that right hand side.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, August 20, 2017 9:05 PM

Cardboard Mock-Up

I stopped by a furniture/appliance sales store who told me to come back tomorrow afternoon when they had a truck of new pieces coming in.

Then I stopped by a cabinet sales store who said they had just unpacked some items that day. WOW, I found multiple large pieces of cardboard, and white ones at that. I'm looking forward to making some mock-ups of the basic shelf shapes to see what I can fit in that area comfortably.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, August 20, 2017 9:21 PM

Cardboard Mockup

 

I cut the cardboard about an 1.5 inches bigger in radius than the 24 inch radius of track (51" diameter) that I expect to place in this region (to give clearance from the backdrops that will be on the walls of the shed, and to give some clearance at the aisle edges.
(I wanted to maximize the shapes so I could tell if they would be to restrictive to moving around in the overall track plan,...can always make things smaller, but likely no larger).

 

I supported this big piece with some very stout steel brackets mounted to the 2x4 studs of the wall (note: backdrop sheets of masonite are not installed yet). I chose these brackets for there large size (16x18), and the fact that they have a 'open area' that will likely be utilized to further support my staging tracks just below that overhead subroadbed of plywood.

 

There is a really nice big open area under this cantilevered plywood subroadbed. It is also a very 'deep' lower level shelf to try and reach over to work on any backdrop, and/or upper level scenery. So while I feel the 5/8" inch plywood is strong enough to support the trains, scenery, structures themselves, it would not stand up to any climbing upon or leaning upon by myself. Then I thought,  why not just make up removable /repositional, supports for the outer edges of this big deep shelf ( I represent just one such support with that cardboard upright in the photo. I imagine the real ones might just be 2x4 constructions, or perhaps nice big round PVC tubes.

I am also considering placing a long rectangular flat strips of 5/8" plywood between those metal brackets and the subroadbed sheet. This would lend additional support to the cantilevered subroadbed, as well as provide some clearance for the DCC bus wires attached to the bottom of the subroadbed.

(BTW that stowage shelf in the background there will not be there, I just didn't have a place outside the shed to put it at the time of mockup)

I'm a tall, relatively slim fellow, so I don't need big wide aisles. I find I can get along with a 18 inches neck-down between the peninsular blob and the two blobs at the entrance. Likewise 24-27 inches seems to be enough for the rear 2 aisles to either side of the peninsula (this layout is for my own consumption,...not for multiple operators, nor visitors).
I do find I will have to be careful with placing my hands on my waist (elbows extended!) when structures are located close to the edges of the layout.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, August 20, 2017 9:29 PM

last of the mockup photos for now...

Those aisles look even more narrow in these photos because I can't get high enough over the layout to shoot straight down,...overhead. And the peninsula piece is not cut as narrow at its 'waist' as I have eventually decided to make it more narrow.

I believe I am going to make the upper level 'peninsula area' a relatively narrow abbreviated scene involving some nice logging and mining scenes that can be worked with tight turning small locos that I have a collection of. Mountains, trees, trestle bridges, etc,...built of lightweight foam construction and hung from those ceiling rafters rather than requiring any support from below.

  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Wyoming, where men are men, and sheep are nervous!
  • 2,406 posts
Posted by Pruitt on Monday, August 21, 2017 6:17 AM
Just a quick observation - those aisleways look a bit narrow. Can two people squeeze by each other in them?
  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, August 21, 2017 7:35 AM

Brunton
Just a quick observation - those aisleways look a bit narrow. Can two people squeeze by each other in them?

 
No Brunton, they can not. I have had a lot of comments on my narrow aisles on another forum. I finally wrote this in reply...

Aisle Width

I'm 6'4' tall and weight only 205 lbs. I still have a 36-37 inch waist size. I'm tall and slim and in good health.

This layout is for me alone,...no other operators. I like to RUN trains, multiple ones where possible, a variety of them. On occasions friends and neighbors may come have a look, but I am NOT going to be having any 'open house'. If they are of limited mobility (such as my 88 year old neighbor and fellow old time sailor), he may just have to view from the rather large open door of the shed, or from the head of the peninsula blob.

I do not plan on having work stations or tools in the layout room,...they will be located out the front door of the shed. Both bridges across the front door will be removable while still allowing double train operation, so my access back and forth to work stations can be facilitated with some ease,....not the most ideal, but necessary in this case.

So while I do recognize all appeals for more aisle size, I'm just not inclined to go that route and sacrifice the peninsula, etc. 

I was initially going to try and move all my train collection (cars, engine, bldgs, etc) out of my cargo trailer and into spaces under the lower deck. I have decided against this as I feel this would add to a cramped feeling. I'm going to just keep my cargo trailer as a stowage means until I decide what to sell off after I get thru selecting what I will use on my layout.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 4,245 posts
Posted by cuyama on Monday, August 21, 2017 9:42 AM

railandsail
I do find I will have to be careful with placing my hands on my waist (elbows extended!) when structures are located close to the edges of the layout.

One of the things I have seen folks discover too late in designing tight aisles everywhere is the amount one’s own caboose sticks out when moving around during construction and maintenance.  Multi-deck designs exacerbate this.

Inadvertant snags of strucures or scenery from layers or folds of clothing can also be a problem.

In addition, over a multi-year layout construction project, one’s bodily proportions may change, particularly with age.

Good luck with your layout.

Byron

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, August 21, 2017 10:28 AM

cuyama

In addition, over a multi-year layout construction project, one’s bodily proportions may change, particularly with age.

Byron

Perhaps if I become unable to fit into this layout, I will have to eliminate, or greatly reduce the size of the peninsula, or reduce the radius on the peninsula and run shorter locos and cars,  ... options I guess.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, August 21, 2017 10:33 AM

Cardboard Mock-up

The cardboard mock-ups were done to get to get some relative ideas of shelf heights, potential shelf depths, aisle needs, support requirements, order of construction, etc,

Its kind of surprising the number of new ideas generated, and yet to come upon further study. I would recommend this approach to a new layout design if one has the time.

Here is one track plan idea submitted early on by a gentleman Iron Horseman. I do not know what track planning software he utilized, but he came pretty close to the general idea I have in mind.

 

 

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, August 21, 2017 10:41 AM

Sketch of Rt Hand Loop

First off please excuse the 'unprofessional presentation'. I tried briefly some track design software, and became discouraged very easily,...too many symbols to learn how to manipulate,..or something like that :confused:

Next, I am on holiday without any drawing instruments, so I paid a visit to the local dollar store, and picked up some school supplies. No local scanning shops,...so I just took a photo of my sketch with a digital camera.

To try and cut down on confusion I decided to present the plan in phases, and without some of the local trackage that will be added later. The first phase drawing is for the loop on the right side of the layout (looking in thru my shed's entrance).

The scale is 4 of those square blocks equal 12",....3" per block. The radius's are all 24" except for the helix, which is 30". This is the loop that will alternately put trains into the bottom entrance to the helix structure,... if so selected. At that point it is a good 8" off of the lower subroadbed. At the head blob of the peninsula it is 4" off the subroadbed to provide clearance for another identical loop of track hidden under it (not shown yet).

There will be a removable bridge across the shed's entrance that will offer the alternative of a total trip around the perimeter of the shed on this lower deck. ....(multiple trains can still be run without ever having this removable bridge in place).

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 4,245 posts
Posted by cuyama on Monday, August 21, 2017 10:42 AM

railandsail
Perhaps if I become unable to fit into this layout, I will have to eliminate, or greatly reduce the size of the peninsula, or reduce the radius on the peninsula and run shorter locos and cars,  ... options I guess.

Seems like that would be easier to do in the design phase than after construction is underway. 

Experienced builders have found that at least three inches between track centers and the aisle is a minimal buffer zone (unless one uses a guard made from plastic or something similar). Track plans that don’t allow for this may be misleading.

I’ll bow out of this thread, best of luck.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, August 21, 2017 10:54 AM

I've tried using 2.75" between edge and track center. And I have LOTS of clear sheets of 1/8 plastic for use as guards on the edges.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, August 21, 2017 10:58 AM

I have tried to maintain 2.75 inches of clearance between edges and track centers.

I have LOTS of clear 1/8" plastic sheets to fashion guards from.

(sorry don't know how to cancel this dbl posting)

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 2:39 PM

rrinker

With that many supporting verticals, you could use laminated layers of one of the engineered materials like masonite. Two layers of 1/4" (so the seams overlap) with that many supports wouldn't sag and not have temperature/humidity issues.

 

Hey Randy,
I just ran across this posting (on another forum) that speaks to the masonite roadbed use in a helix you mentioned. And it appears as though this fellow only utilized single thickness?? I'm going to see if I can find more about his particular application, but it does make me feel better about about a double layer of masonite and closer uprights.

Helix Types

 

 

I have 3 helixes on my HO/HOn3 layout.  One is a "standard" one of about 5 turns in HOn3 only.  The other two actually are "stacks" of helixes.  One stack consists of a 1/2 turn dual gauge helix approached by a long grade. The second multiple turn helix in this stack is HOn3 only, with separate entry and exit points not related to the dual gauge one below.  It also is of smaller radius than the one below.  The third stack consists of a dual gauge helix twisting downward to a staging yard underneath the main yard, where the main entry is.  This main entry also leads to a single twist dual gauge helix on top of the lower one with the exit leading off to a long down grade.  This main entry also leads to a  third HOn3 only helix of several twists on top of the other two which leads to an HOn3 "high line".  All of these helixes are of the same radii.

All the helixes are built of 1/8" tempered Masonite laminated together with carpenter's glue and precut to various diameters.  This thinness is needed to minimize the grades.  All are supported by threaded rod material using washers and nuts, which allows fine tuning of the grades as needed.  To hold the track in place (all track in the helixes is ME flex track), I first tried glue which didn't work because of the plastic ties.  I ended up using AMI "Instant Roadbed" which both held the track firmly in place and deadened the sound.  The Instant Roadbed is  very flexible  and the plastic-tied flex track can be pressed into it, usually easily, depending upon e temperature of the room.  I have used a low wattage hair blower to soften the Instant Roadbed without softening the ties.

 

I assembled the roadbed, complete with the track and Instant Roadbed, before putting them in place on the layout.  That way, I could drill through the layers of Masonite and thus save time and make sure the holes were all aligned properly for the vertical threaded rods.  This helix setup has worked fine for the past ten years or so.

 

I use Digitraxx DCC and I ran the wiring busses but inside the edges of the helixes, following the turns, so the busses then could enter and exit the helixes at the proper places.  I elected to use horizontal power districts on the whole layout, rather than vertical ones, in order to make trouble shooting a lot easier because of the layout's various levels (there are 3) and geography.

 

AMI went out of the roadbed business in 2007, unfortunately.  The material is uncured butyl rubber and I understand that similar material can be gotten at auto supply stores that specialize in air conditioning parts (it's used to wrap a/c piping).  I haven't tried since I still have some AMI material left.  Somebody also found similar material at:

 

  http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1056223/ShowPost.aspx

 

Someone else has suggested trying plumbing supply stores; the material, or similar stuff, used to wrap pipes.

 

Hart Corbett

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 28,182 posts
Posted by rrinker on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 5:45 PM

 He says laminates so I am assuming he means it's really two 1/8" thicknesses. 1/8" by itself is pretty flimsy, and even with lots of support for each piece, the joints would be VERY weak. 2 layers laminated would be stiffer than a single 1/4" layer which is ok but not spectactular and would still have an issue at the joints. By using two thicknesses you can overlap the joints so at each joint, one layter or the other is continuous.

 ANd gain with the complex supports - threaded rod? It was all the rage at one time but "so you adjust the grade" is more like "so you WILL adjust the grade" as you try to get an even grade all the way around constantly adjusting the supporting nuts until you get it right and then hope the jam nut you run up against it keeps everything in place over time. With the "every support piece exactly the same" method you could theoretically use kerfed pieces of 1x lumber and run the support continuous - however access might be a bit of a problem. But with roadbed maybe 6 inches wide supported continuously at both edges - you could use fairly thin material without sagging. Just - how would you retrieve a train stuck halfway up? So it's not practical to do a contnuous support, but you certainly could place supports with maybe a car length spacing so you can reach your hand it.

                                --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Saturday, August 26, 2017 10:02 AM

New Renditions of Layout Loops

As I've indicated I am not much of a 'apps' person, but this morning decided to just try a paint program to display the individual loops of the track plan,...crude attempt, but it gets the message across.

You will find I have 3 loops of track on the lower level:
1) the one associated with the turntable area (in blue)
2) the one associated with the port area (in red)
3) the one that circles the entire perimeter of the layout when the removable bridge at the entrance is in place.

I have also high-lited (in yellow) several small sections of track that allows for the trains to reverse their directions on their individual loops. This is particularly important on the blue loop to be able to climb onto the helix. I also thought it was important in general.

 

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, August 31, 2017 7:19 AM

SMART software view

On another forum a gentleman Phil was so gracious to give me this view he created with what I think was SMART.

I had another play around with it. There is nothing wrong with the software I'm using to plan it. Problem is the track plan is tight,real tight. Would work semi ok with smaller engines. I used Peco #6 turnouts or curved Peco #7. Expect for the port area. nothing would work expect Atlas #4. Distances  i.e CTC are Centre track to Centre track distance. You would need to allow for edges of benchwork and overhang on loco's.

I would change the placement of the yard, as suggested. But end of the day its your track plan. You will be the one building it and living with it. There are  issues with some grade separations. As highlighted by red circles.Also, there isnt much spare space for buildings scenery as well. Phil

I say it proves I can fit that plan into my shed, albeit with some narrower aisles than many would utilize.

Brian

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, August 31, 2017 7:59 AM

Eliminate and/or Reconfigure the Peninsula

 

I've been thinking about a few of their suggestions about eliminating the peninsula altogether, and building a triple decker. Haven't arrived at any ideas that light my fire.

 

From a previous posting I made...

If I were to take that big peninsula out of the center of the room, it would certainly make for a more open space. And when I think about it there is not that much scenery/etc that I can fit on it compared to its size and disposition. Perhaps if I eliminated it I could make the surrounding shelves a bit bigger and fit more industry/scenery on them than I would lose by eliminating the peninsula.

One idea that entered my mind was what if I 'cut off' the root of that peninsula I had been considering, then move that circular blob down to the rear wall of the layout ?  I'm going to play with idea. It might allow me to maintain the some semblance of two individual loops I had been considering, while opening up the center space.

 

I'm playing with some ideas along that line of thinking at the moment.

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 1,344 posts
Posted by SouthPenn on Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:52 AM

You could turn your peninsula into the tail of a long 'wye' that is connected to both of the tracks on either side of the shed. This would allow turning complete trains around and connect one side to the other.

I have 24" wide aisles on my layout. I have regreted that since day one but was too stubborn and/or stupid to make them wider. Big mistake.

I have also made a reversing loop with 1/2" PVC water pipe. I used the PVC to get a long smooth curve. The curve came out great, but it is a real pain to lay track or make changes. Never again.

South Penn
  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, August 31, 2017 10:29 AM

SouthPenn
You could turn your peninsula into the tail of a long 'wye' that is connected to both of the tracks on either side of the shed. This would allow turning complete trains around and connect one side to the other.

I'm having trouble picturing this. Could you provide just a rough little sketch,...or photo example??

I saw your pvc roadbed experiment and made note of it on my helix construction subject thread. At this moment I may have some other alternatives to the pvc roadbed in that project of mine. I believe yours had some sagging problems, but as I noted on your subject thread I think that was due to your asking the pvc to bridge too great of distances between your framing supports.

Brian

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 273 posts
Posted by Colorado Ray on Thursday, August 31, 2017 5:52 PM

SouthPenn

You could turn your peninsula into the tail of a long 'wye' that is connected to both of the tracks on either side of the shed. This would allow turning complete trains around and connect one side to the other.

 

I think an example of what SouthPenn is proposing is the New Orleans Union Terminal on the Mississippi, Alabama and Gulf line that was featured in Model Railroad Planning a few years ago.  Don't have access at work to check which issue though.  The terminal was on the "tail" of the wye on a narrower peninsula than would be required for a return loop blob at the end.  Although as i recall, the lower level (under NOUPT) did have a turnback loop that encroached into the aisles.

Others have done similar peninsulas with industrial themes on teh wye tail.

Ray

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 1,344 posts
Posted by SouthPenn on Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:25 PM

In this picture of a wye, the tail goes across the bridge. On your layout it would extend out on a narrowed center peninsula. The part of the wye at the top left of the picture would go to one side of your shed, the bottom left part to the other side of the shed. There is a connecting track that connects the top of the wye together.

The tail of the wye could have a small station on it, or a bridge like in the picture.

Just some ideas.

South Penn
  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, September 1, 2017 5:56 AM

SouthPenn

In this picture of a wye, the tail goes across the bridge. On your layout it would extend out on a narrowed center peninsula. The part of the wye at the top left of the picture would go to one side of your shed, the bottom left part to the other side of the shed. There is a connecting track that connects the top of the wye together.

Here a wye extends into an industrial area on the peninsula It was suggested on another forum. Something like this might be a consideration if I sought out a 'smaller/thinner peninsula'.

I have often wondered about a 'wye' as a train turning configuration. I can see how they would turn around a single loco, or maybe one with one or two cars attached. But most do not have a tail long enough to turn a whole train.

On my old Atlas plan 'Central Midland' I had an arrangement where I could back a whole long train into my freight yard (and on into a track in my staging area, if it was really long), and subsequent turn an entire train around. It was quite a challenge to carefully back that whole train into one 'leg' of that wye configuration. (that trackplan was a John Armstong design that I did a few mods on).

Added a few pics of my 'flipped over version of the Central Midland with its long spine down thru the freight yard and the dbl-track 'Y' configuration...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, September 1, 2017 6:23 AM

railandsail

Eliminate and/or Reconfigure the Peninsula

One idea that entered my mind was what if I 'cut off' the root of that peninsula I had been considering, then move that circular blob down to the rear wall of the layout ?  I'm going to play with idea. It might allow me to maintain the some semblance of two individual loops I had been considering, while opening up the center space.

I'm playing with some ideas along that line of thinking at the moment.

Again, please excuse my poor quality presentation,...I'm making some sketches on graph paper, but only have a camera to take some photos out in the sun and post them.

I just wanted to get an idea of the space in the center I would open up, and the changes in the aisle sizes I'd get by modifying the peninsula. in this case I have moved the peninsula's 24" loop to the back wall of the shed. I also sketched in a few optional elongations to the loop into possible oval configurations. Maybe such an oval might contain a bigger port scene (moved from lower loop which is now a blast furnance/steel mill scene possibility.)

At any rate this oval peninsula loop is likely the largest one I would consider. Even so it greatly opens up space in the center of the room, while still allowing for significantly larger deck/shelf spaces on both sides of the room (just sketched in what might be possible).

Have not worked out how the various tracks might enter and leave that peninsula loop.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Saturday, September 2, 2017 7:32 AM

One Option for Oval Peninsula Loop

 

Here is one option I came up with today for that oval shaped peninsula loop. It would be somewhat akin to the first loop of a helix.

 

The track coming into it from the left side of the layout could elect to take a turnout to the right and proceed in a clockwise direction around the oval loop rise at about a 2% grade, go over a drawbridge, then split ( via turnout) to either go on up the external helix.  Or it might take a right hand turnout and  proceed to go down grade to the right hand side of the layout.

 

There will two ways a train can enter the peninsula loop, from the 'bottom' as I just described, or from the top via that track from the turntable loop or the mainline around the perimeter of the layout.

 

There will no longer be 2 individual loops on either side, but rather these two 'inner loops' will readily communicate with one another. And the trains on these 'inner loops' will be able to reverse their directions on the loops from a clockwise transition to counterclockwise one.

 

The oval peninsula loop is offset from the centerline of the shed by about 4" to the left. This could be increased so as to make the aisles on either side more equal in spacing. The sizable space allowed for the right hand side freight yard could also be cut down a few inches if needed for more aisleway, as there is already much more space for this yard due to the wider deck on that side.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, September 3, 2017 10:11 AM

Modify Turntable Loop?

The thought occurred to me that I might make a modification to turntable loop that would allow 2 trains to run on the lower deck concurrently,.... if I were to further limit the amount of track that was 'shared' between the inner loops of track and the perimeter loop. I can't limit it all, but I can limit better than half of it.

What if I were to make the turntable loop a double-track loop. I propose to take the two long parallel tracks on the right side of the layout and pinch them up as close to their wall as feasible,...after all they are going to be covered over with a 'street and thin city building scene' that will constructed of lt-weigth foam board and plastic so as to be removable to access any derailments.

Those two parallel tracks will feed into the turnable loop of 2 concentric radius tracks, the outer one 25" and the inner one 23". The inner one will be for shorter engines, not long articulates (although I think some can transverse it).
 

 

What do I gain?
1) First off  it might be interesting to have 2  mainlines coming around that outer edge of the turnable scene and feeding the yard, the turntable, a train station.

2) Secondly it frees up any 'sharing of track' on that side of the layout. So the inner loop train can bounce back and forth across the layout while only fearing one section of 'shared track' with the perimeter train,....that common track around the 'steel loop',

3) It might allow that 'perimeter running passenger train' to come into a train station (on a roadway over the yard tracks) for a visit, even while the freight train continues thru the freight yard and back onto the the other side of the layout.

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 28,182 posts
Posted by rrinker on Sunday, September 3, 2017 11:46 AM

 You are already in restricted space - something has to give. A double track main should be one of those. You'll have issues with a 2" center space on curves that tight unless you are running N scale or only really short cars (nothing really over 40 foot types). If you are modeling Civil War or just after, carry on.

 Instead of having two loops on the wings, how about moving the yard down to one of them? It can be narrower then, making the entry aisle wider. With the looop going around it, you have room for a turntable but not much of a roundhouse. If the yard extends down one side, you can put the turntable offset towards the outside wall (so you just have stub tracks on the opposite side of the bridge) and room for a 3 or 4 stall engine house angles down towards the door.

A lift bridge across the entry would allow an all the way around the walls continuous run, otherwise, putting a second loop in the upper right means the run is a lot shorter. But again - space is limited, something has to give. A 5 mile mainline just isn't going to fit in this space. I'd probably kill both loops and go with the lift bridge across the door.

 For the penninsula - there's a VERY good idea in the July 2017 MRH (free). It's relatively narrow, yet supports two large industries with multiple spots on each one. The one takes something like 6 different car types. It's the later stages of the TOMA contest second place winner's article.

                            --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, September 3, 2017 12:39 PM

rrinker

You are already in restricted space - something has to give. A double track main should be one of those. You'll have issues with a 2" center space on curves that tight unless you are running N scale or only really short cars (nothing really over 40 foot types). If you are modeling Civil War or just after, carry on.

I was not planning on a dbl track mainline ALL the way around, ...just that portion that would be under the lift-out city backdrop scene.

Yes I understand that 2 inch spacing on the dbl-loop of track might be a little small, so perhaps with some crunching I could get the outer loop up to 26" and/or that inner loop down to 22", or at least provide for 2.5 inches between those tracks.  I would NOT be counting on running long articulates or long cars on the inner loop in that roundhouse area.

rrinker
Instead of having two loops on the wings, how about moving the yard down to one of them? It can be narrower then, making the entry aisle wider. With the looop going around it, you have room for a turntable but not much of a roundhouse. If the yard extends down one side, you can put the turntable offset towards the outside wall (so you just have stub tracks on the opposite side of the bridge) and room for a 3 or 4 stall engine house angles down towards the door.


I see what you are saying, but perhaps I have not conveyed what I have in mind for the roundhouse scene. First off I suspect I will have only the front face of a roundhouse with perhaps a dwg of the remainder of it on the backdrop. Just don't have room for whole structure.. Perhaps some photos or cut off ends of tenders in the doorways of that roundhouse.

What I really want in that scene is some display tracks for some of my steam collection, some caboose(s), and steam services like this...


rrinker
A lift bridge across the entry would allow an all the way around the walls continuous run, otherwise, putting a second loop in the upper right means the run is a lot shorter. But again - space is limited, something has to give. A 5 mile mainline just isn't going to fit in this space. I'd probably kill both loops and go with the lift bridge across the door.

Perhaps you missed it, but I plan on having 2 (two) lift out bridges across the entry way. The one on the lower level will be at 40" off the floor, about my waist height, and will be 27-28 inches wide. The upper level bridge at 60" off the floor will be at shoulder height, and can be quite a bit wider (no loops up there). Interior doors in an a house are usually 29-30 inches wide. So I think I can fit in between those loops on either side of the layout,...and thus be able to run trains in a continous manner around portions of the layout WITHOUT having either of the bridges across the entry way set in place.....loop to loop wouldn't they call it?

rrinker
For the penninsula - there's a VERY good idea in the July 2017 MRH (free). It's relatively narrow, yet supports two large industries with multiple spots on each one. The one takes something like 6 different car types. It's the later stages of the TOMA contest second place winner's article.


I will have to look that one up. Thanks, Brian

                      

 

 

 

  • Member since
    November 2006
  • From: Northeast
  • 731 posts
Posted by GraniteRailroader on Sunday, September 3, 2017 4:08 PM

It's been a long while since I've emerged from the shadows, but after reading this thread a few times I thought I'd chime in...

You're givens and druthers are not aligning. If your space is 12' wide, a peninsula with a loop is going to make things incredibly cramped as well as a construction nightmare due to having no space to work.

An around the walls design point to loop on each level, with a discrete concealed track leading to an upper level would give you much of what your asking for. 

Simple can be better, especially when you're going to be doing this alone as you say.

This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,901 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, September 3, 2017 4:35 PM

GraniteRailroader

 If your space is 12' wide, a peninsula with a loop is going to make things incredibly cramped as well as a construction nightmare due to having no space to work.

An around the walls design point to loop on each level, with a discrete concealed track leading to an upper level would give you much of what your asking for. 

If you would please help me with a little clarity of what you just posted?

I can see clearly now that my original idea with the bigger, longer peninsula was really encroaching on free space inside the surrounding tracks. But do you feel that same problem exist with my newer, smaller peninsula blob and the much larger space possiblities in the center?

Are you suggesting that I have a point to loop track on both levels and a helix to do greater service in order continous run a train from loop to loop??

 

PS: That clear space in the middle of my latest version is a little over 6 feet long at an average of 6 foot wide on the lower level. And would be even wider & bigger at the upper deck level.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!