railandsail thomas81z railandsail since im in fla also , i just finished reading your thread with great interest & man do i have a ton of articulated steam , so whats the update ?? Steve Sweeney OK. I'm curious. Have you done anything more on this? -Steve I eventually decided (thru many postings on several forums) that my radii turns on several of the loops was going to be a little too much for many of my steam engines,...so I began to look at alternatives. This is the next layout that inspired me,...Tupper Lakehttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx#3005127 progressing to http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx?page=6 So I am building this now, and I have resorted to full size paper templates/plans,..Full Size Paper Templates of Trackplanhttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/273575.aspx I ran into a problem on this forum with posting pictures. The forum itself did NOT host photos themselves, but rather required one to link to a third party site,......but that site could NOT be another model rr forum. That created too much work and complication, so I just abandoned trying to post new photos of my new layout project here. You might be really excited to see what I have come up with. Just weeks ago I was finally able to run 3 trains simutaniously on my two deck layout using only DC power. I am presently installing DCC power.
thomas81z railandsail since im in fla also , i just finished reading your thread with great interest & man do i have a ton of articulated steam , so whats the update ?? Steve Sweeney OK. I'm curious. Have you done anything more on this? -Steve I eventually decided (thru many postings on several forums) that my radii turns on several of the loops was going to be a little too much for many of my steam engines,...so I began to look at alternatives. This is the next layout that inspired me,...Tupper Lakehttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx#3005127 progressing to http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx?page=6 So I am building this now, and I have resorted to full size paper templates/plans,..Full Size Paper Templates of Trackplanhttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/273575.aspx
railandsail since im in fla also , i just finished reading your thread with great interest & man do i have a ton of articulated steam , so whats the update ?? Steve Sweeney OK. I'm curious. Have you done anything more on this? -Steve I eventually decided (thru many postings on several forums) that my radii turns on several of the loops was going to be a little too much for many of my steam engines,...so I began to look at alternatives. This is the next layout that inspired me,...Tupper Lakehttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx#3005127 progressing to http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx?page=6 So I am building this now, and I have resorted to full size paper templates/plans,..Full Size Paper Templates of Trackplanhttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/273575.aspx
since im in fla also , i just finished reading your thread with great interest & man do i have a ton of articulated steam , so whats the update ??
Steve Sweeney OK. I'm curious. Have you done anything more on this? -Steve
OK. I'm curious. Have you done anything more on this? -Steve
I eventually decided (thru many postings on several forums) that my radii turns on several of the loops was going to be a little too much for many of my steam engines,...so I began to look at alternatives.
This is the next layout that inspired me,...Tupper Lakehttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx#3005127
progressing to http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx?page=6
So I am building this now, and I have resorted to full size paper templates/plans,..Full Size Paper Templates of Trackplanhttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/273575.aspx
I ran into a problem on this forum with posting pictures. The forum itself did NOT host photos themselves, but rather required one to link to a third party site,......but that site could NOT be another model rr forum. That created too much work and complication, so I just abandoned trying to post new photos of my new layout project here.
You might be really excited to see what I have come up with. Just weeks ago I was finally able to run 3 trains simutaniously on my two deck layout using only DC power. I am presently installing DCC power.
Hi Mike.
I noticed that Brian has not gotten back to you yet but he has all sorts of pictures up on MRH.
Scott Sonntag
I'd like to see it Brian, is it on MRH ?
Mike.
My You Tube
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
Steve SweeneyDigital Editor, Hobby
Another Track Plan Consideration
Its been a while since I posted to this subject thread, but I wanted to let folks know that I have NOT totally abandoned this trackplan idea.Its just that I found another interesting trackplan that I wanted to spend time investigating prior to making a decision as to which one to build. I started a new subject thread on that other plan so as to not confuse matters by mixing the 2 up.
Interesting Plan, Tupper Lake & Faust Junctionhttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/3004238/reply.aspxhttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/265819/3005127.aspx#3005127
Forgive this depiction as the tracks are upside down from what I intend. This illustrates the width available for 4 tracks.
Now I have found a way to add more staging tracks,...maybe 8. Simply add another one of those square sectioned alum beams to the wall bracket at a lower level,...
The use of this metal beam substructure results in a staging area that is not as far under the surface of the lower deck roadbed, thus it might climb to that upper level with less grade, and perhaps without a helix?
Here is an interesting illustration of what I have in mind, except this example utilizes wood extensions added to the wall brackets.
I like the really clean look of this arrangement, and the lack of big thick wood framing structure one might have if utilizing L-girder. or open grid, or cookie cutter support of that shelf.
Well one ask, how about attaching the risers to this arrangement? I reply, can't the risers be fashioned of foam blocks, or similar 'blocking' to attain the heights of tracks desired? And can't the depressions be cut out of the flat plywood (or foam) deck where desired. Its all be done in foam board construction.
Since my lower deck/shelves are considerable 'wider/deeper' in some areas, I want to replace those wood beam extensions shown above with metal beams,...attached to my wall brackets. The choice of the metal extension beam will depend on the depth of the shelf at any particular location. I think I would choose this angle iron for the very large width areas under the two loops at the entrance, and perhaps under the peninsula loop.....
As the deck/shelf narrows down I would chose these alum square tubes (probably the white colored ones since they are of a greater wall thickness....(probably only need single tube, rather than 2 side by side, as it is quite strong)
For this lower level my subroadbed will likely be a good quality 1/2" thick plywood firmly attached to those alum beams,...such as to decrease its chance of warping, and to add a 'skin like' support to the whole structure of 'beam & skin'.
railandsail You are correct that is a 'Y' turnout I put in there,...mainly to try and turn the ladder a bit more to the right. In reality I may not need to do that on the actually layout. I will discover more about this when I try laying out the paper templates (and/or actual) turnouts on my full size cardboard mock-ups.
You are correct that is a 'Y' turnout I put in there,...mainly to try and turn the ladder a bit more to the right. In reality I may not need to do that on the actually layout. I will discover more about this when I try laying out the paper templates (and/or actual) turnouts on my full size cardboard mock-ups.
Before I take this cardboard mock-up down in order to install the 'masonite' wall coverings, I figured I would do an update on the double track loops I now want around the turntable area, and a little more accurate model of the turnouts leading into the freight yard.
(I eliminated the dbl 'Y' I had in the first edition, and included a second dbl-slip down at the end for that last combo turnout)
Metal BenchworkI intend to utilize some form of metal benchwork to support my subroadbed, whether it be foam sheet or plywood, or combo of the two.I started a separate discussion on that over here:
Metal Benchworkhttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/265524.aspx
railandsail(It seems as though my posted pics and dwg have been edited down in width such that they are distorted. Can you extract a full size dwg??)
When you click reply they go back to normal size, also clicking and opening in a new window allows viewing normally.
Is the third turnout up the ladder on the first photo a Peco 24" radius Y turnout? If so that will create an s-curve that you may find problematic (I dont remember what size equipment you said you were running). If you have one I would consider a PECO short turnout LH (also nominal 24" radius) in that location instead.
I found many of my turnouts from my stowage trailer,...all but my Peco ones. I also discovered some full scale templates for Peco turnouts. As you might see I have a large number of very nice Fleischmann Pro-Track ones
Thought I would run a quick experiment to see if I could duplicated one portion of my layout design with actual turnouts I had in stock. Updated the layout dwg first , with some scaling lines(boxes),....each box represents 1 foot (12 inches) in full size.
And here are a couple of examples of the entrance tracks to the freight yard.
(BTW, that piece of plywood they are laid out on is only about 3 feet wide, rather than the 53" I have on the layout dwg).
(It seems as though my posted pics and dwg have been edited down in width such that they are distorted. Can you extract a full size dwg??)
rrinker Any chance you can upgrade the shed to the next size? 14' of width instead of 12' will allow sections of 18" wide benchwork to pass by a 60" penninsula blob, enough for at least 27" radius turnback curves, and still have 3' aisles on either side. --Randy
Any chance you can upgrade the shed to the next size? 14' of width instead of 12' will allow sections of 18" wide benchwork to pass by a 60" penninsula blob, enough for at least 27" radius turnback curves, and still have 3' aisles on either side.
--Randy
Pretty tight fit as it was. You can see some of the new footers I had to pour for the carpost columns. The good thing about being mostly under the carport roof is that the shed is reasonable cool inside,...along with a thorough insulation job, a ceiling fan, and an AC unit that is not shown in these early photos.
GraniteRailroader Can you post one of your drawings with what you feel are your measurements With so few measurements in the latest version its nearly impossible to judge what the benchwork size is without having to guess or extrapolate rough sizes based on other elements.
Can you post one of your drawings with what you feel are your measurements
With so few measurements in the latest version its nearly impossible to judge what the benchwork size is without having to guess or extrapolate rough sizes based on other elements.
I'll do that in the next day or so. Tomorrow I have to go get some stuff I will be using to build the layout. And I have to spend some time on some flooding we have around here do to recent rain from hurricane, then 2 more days of heavy rain. Grow is saturated. Our street is like a river.
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
First off that drawing by GraniteRailroader is not accurate with my latest shelf dimensions. Shelf/deck will be considerable wider/deeper at its midpoint
Can you post one of your drawings with what you feel are your measurements?
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
trainnut1250 I’m not sure that your last post with photos makes your case. That scene is huge. It is at least 25’ long to my eye. If the point is the building flats - that is just rearranging deck chairs. As Randy points out, you don’t get enough width savings to matter...
trainnut1250 Let’s look at the above diagram to see if I can make my point. We are looking at the amount of available space for a scene. As it is in the drawing: Start by driving your imaginary train along the back wall of the scene towards the blob end of the bench work. After you make the run around the loop, it takes 8’ feet of run to come back to straight (add in the necessary curve to bring it back to parallel The loops cause one other design constraint- they force the track on the back wall all the way to the back edge of the scene and they force the front track all the way to the front edge around the blob. Also notice how the front track limits your possibilities by defining the front edge with a train track. In addition, the area in the loop is pretty tight for HO. You will have to do all kinds of contortions to fit some track in the loops that works convincingly from a scenic point of view.
As it is in the drawing: Start by driving your imaginary train along the back wall of the scene towards the blob end of the bench work. After you make the run around the loop, it takes 8’ feet of run to come back to straight (add in the necessary curve to bring it back to parallel
The loops cause one other design constraint- they force the track on the back wall all the way to the back edge of the scene and they force the front track all the way to the front edge around the blob. Also notice how the front track limits your possibilities by defining the front edge with a train track. In addition, the area in the loop is pretty tight for HO. You will have to do all kinds of contortions to fit some track in the loops that works convincingly from a scenic point of view.
trainnut1250 At this point I don’t want to be discouraging to you. I am trying to help out. I feel that you would have a more successful layout that would be fun to build and operate if you come to grips with your space limitations. I don’t want to push too hard, just want to make sure that you have heard from all sides and that those watching this thread understand the issues with the space you have and the design you are choosing. My two cents, Guy
My two cents,
Guy
And in support of my loops,... look what these computer track plans came up with.....
...an early sketch I had made (each of those square blocks on the graph paper is 3" inches)
railandsail GraniteRailroader Spent fifteen minutes in XtrakCad to do this real quick...
GraniteRailroader Spent fifteen minutes in XtrakCad to do this real quick...
Spent fifteen minutes in XtrakCad to do this real quick...
railandsail
I’m not sure that your last post with photos makes your case. That scene is huge. It is at least 25’ long to my eye. If the point is the building flats - that is just rearranging deck chairs. As Randy points out, you don’t get enough width savings to matter...
Let’s look at the above diagram to see if I can make my point. We are looking at the amount of available space for a scene.
As it is in the drawing: Start by driving your imaginary train along the back wall of the scene towards the blob end of the bench work. After you make the run around the loop, it takes 8’ feet of run to come back to straight (add in the necessary curve to bring it back to parallel with the layout edge). Now you run in a scene for roughly four feet before you have to start the curves on the other end of the bench work to get back to go around the room.
The scene length without curves is roughly four feet, not a very large scene. Basically the whole wall is the loop with a small straight section. This is great if you want to model loops. The reason the Tonopah plan works is because there is an 18’ run on straight after the loops. Your plan/s can’t shrink the loop that much so to make it fit, so the straight has to be significantly shortened, making the scene a big loop.
Now lose the blob and loop. Drive your train towards the blob. You see that you will have 11 feet to build a scene before you hit the turn to go across the doorway. Much more room to do something cool. No front track to define the scene, no loop to further constrain the design. You can move the main track to the center of the scene, to the back, to the front – it doesn’t matter....
At this point I don’t want to be discouraging to you. I am trying to help out. I feel that you would have a more successful layout that would be fun to build and operate if you come to grips with your space limitations. I don’t want to push too hard, just want to make sure that you have heard from all sides and that those watching this thread understand the issues with the space you have and the design you are choosing.
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
I had no plans on 'reducing' that LP&T track plan down so it could fit into my shed. Rather I was interested on borrowing some ideas from it, ie the city, turntable, yard scene. My city scene would likely be 1/8 as deep as that one on LP&T, plus the reduction in the yard width.
The thing is, the LP&T has 6 feet more width than you doo. That's tough to overcome just by splitting out 2 or 3 yard tracks - that doesn't even reduce things by 6 inches.
Thin City BackdropNot the reference material I saved from long time ago (haven't found that yet), but something I just found today that will come in handy as I will be using this thin hardboard as a backdrop all around my layouthttp://www.sumidacrossing.org/LayoutConstruction/BackdropConstruction/
...and thishttp://www.pghtrainfanatic.com/index.php/store/building-flats/
...or these
railandsail trainnut1250 ..... The two turn back loops don’t fit tin the space easily. They make your scenes along the walls too short. Loops are hard to scenic and they limit your possibilities – for example, your TT and tracks won’t fit in the space you have put them (you will see this when you draw the design accurately) My two cents, Guy Did you see this ealier posting of mine? Lone Pine & Tonopah I spoke previously of 2 layout plans that were very interesting to me to review in my effort to arrive at a combo of two. That second layout was the Lone Pine & Tonopah. The dwg I have on file came from a Nov 1993 issue of Model Railroader mag. I believe he has since made a number of changes to this original design. No matter, as I would seek to make a number of changes as well to it in order for it to scale down to fit my shed. Its more the concept I would be looking at. I have mentioned that I might be looking at the Balt/east coast theme for the lower level of my layout. With that in mind I would be interested in that roundhouse scene and city backdrop being located somewhat similar on that right hand side 'blob' of my layout as one enters the layout. I have a goodly number of real nice steam engines I would like to be 'on display' in that roundtable scene (with more on the outdoor tracks than inside any roundhouse). I had a similar 'display of steam' on my old Central Midland layout. I figure my lower level in that area would have to neck down much more to give aisle clearance. So my railyard tracks would have to be perhaps half in number to those he has. And my city backdrop would have to be just a single layer of very thinly sectioned buildings, and a good painted backdrop. I would still like to have that circular mainline going around the roundtable facility and 'under' the city. I would also like to have that mainline join with the one that would cross the shed's door opening via a nice lift-out bridge (Chesapeake Bay Bridge or whatever).
trainnut1250 ..... The two turn back loops don’t fit tin the space easily. They make your scenes along the walls too short. Loops are hard to scenic and they limit your possibilities – for example, your TT and tracks won’t fit in the space you have put them (you will see this when you draw the design accurately) My two cents, Guy
The two turn back loops don’t fit tin the space easily. They make your scenes along the walls too short. Loops are hard to scenic and they limit your possibilities – for example, your TT and tracks won’t fit in the space you have put them (you will see this when you draw the design accurately)
Did you see this ealier posting of mine?
Lone Pine & Tonopah I spoke previously of 2 layout plans that were very interesting to me to review in my effort to arrive at a combo of two. That second layout was the Lone Pine & Tonopah. The dwg I have on file came from a Nov 1993 issue of Model Railroader mag. I believe he has since made a number of changes to this original design.
No matter, as I would seek to make a number of changes as well to it in order for it to scale down to fit my shed. Its more the concept I would be looking at. I have mentioned that I might be looking at the Balt/east coast theme for the lower level of my layout. With that in mind I would be interested in that roundhouse scene and city backdrop being located somewhat similar on that right hand side 'blob' of my layout as one enters the layout. I have a goodly number of real nice steam engines I would like to be 'on display' in that roundtable scene (with more on the outdoor tracks than inside any roundhouse). I had a similar 'display of steam' on my old Central Midland layout. I figure my lower level in that area would have to neck down much more to give aisle clearance. So my railyard tracks would have to be perhaps half in number to those he has. And my city backdrop would have to be just a single layer of very thinly sectioned buildings, and a good painted backdrop. I would still like to have that circular mainline going around the roundtable facility and 'under' the city. I would also like to have that mainline join with the one that would cross the shed's door opening via a nice lift-out bridge (Chesapeake Bay Bridge or whatever).
yes I saw this... I've also seen all the other iterations to try and fit this plan into your space... IMHO - they don't work because your space is too small. the tonopah layout is designed for a 500 sq ft space that is 18.5 feet across... it won't fit into a space that is 196 sq ft and only 12 feet across Your space is so much smaller (less than half) that maybe you should be looking at other options - like around the room no loops.
You do have the space for a nice layout. Just not the one you were envisioning. I would decide what elements you can borrow from the tonopah and the other plan (don't include the loops) and try to incorporate them into an around the walls design.
your mileage may vary,
BMMECNYC Phil pointed this out: the two red circles. The distance between the turnout and the point were the tracks cross is insuficient to make clearance for a train underneath in HO scale. The one on the left will be around a 14% grade (calculated a rise over run of 3.5"/24"). Splitting the difference with a 7% grade still may not work well, and you will want to leave vertical transistions between the starts and stops of grade The right hand one looks like it is about 11%. Still a somewhat troublesome 5.5% once you split the grade.
Phil pointed this out: the two red circles. The distance between the turnout and the point were the tracks cross is insuficient to make clearance for a train underneath in HO scale. The one on the left will be around a 14% grade (calculated a rise over run of 3.5"/24"). Splitting the difference with a 7% grade still may not work well, and you will want to leave vertical transistions between the starts and stops of grade
The right hand one looks like it is about 11%. Still a somewhat troublesome 5.5% once you split the grade.
You are correct about the vertical clearance problems at those circled spots. That was my original plan that I have now abandoned, and I mistakenly utilized a 1" rise/fall per 24" travel span, rather than a 48" travel span.
BMMECNYCI'm guessing by further posts that you have modified your plan somewhat to shorten your peninsula.
BMMECNYCThere is no scale reference on this drawing (squares) so I cannot say for sure, but it looks like the yard tracks on the right are not spaced far enough apart for two cars to sit on the tracks next to each other. I have about the same space to work with and have had these problems crop up in my track planning software (most software will let you place track right next to each other with no consideration of centerline track spacing).
BMMECNYCAdequate spacing is shown for parallel tracks on the right hand side of the plan just below the double crossover piece. Another quick observation: with 24" radius curves, and even with locomotives that hinge in the middle (this actually exacerbates the problem in some cases), you may have a side swipe issues with the boiler and the cab swinging out (depending on which direction your locomotive is going) at this spot (the point 1-2feet below the double crossover).
I think those cross overs are too tight. I just quickly sketched them in to try and visulize how the trains might tranverse the layout.
railandsail 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
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 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.
Phil pointed this out: the two red circles. The distance between the turnout and the point were the tracks cross is insuficient to make clearance for a train underneath in HO scale. The one on the left will be around a 14% grade (calculated a rise over run of 3.5"/24"). Splitting the difference with a 7% grade still may not work well, and you will want to leave verticle transistions between the starts and stops of grades.
Im guessing by further posts that you have modified your plan somewhat to shorten your peninsula.
There is no scale reference on this drawing (squares) so I cannot say for sure, but it looks like the yard tracks on the right are not spaced far enough apart for two cars to sit on the tracks next to each other. Adequate spacing is shown for parallel tracks on the right hand side of the plan just below the double crossover piece. Another quick observation: with 24" radius curves, and even with locomotives that hinge in the middle (this actually exacerbates the problem in some cases), you may have a side swipe issues with the boiler and the cab swinging out (depending on which direction your locomotive is going) at this spot (the point 1-2feet below the double crossover).
I have about the same space to work with and have had these problems crop up in my track planning software (most software will let you place track right next to each other with no consideration of centerline track spacing).
Check out the newly re-worked RP-7 (formerly S-7) from the NMRA.
https://www.nmra.org/index-nmra-standards-and-recommended-practices
You may find that RP 7.1, 7.2, 7.3. and TN 7 very useful in avoiding clearance issues.
Good morning,
It's hard to see on your drawing where your depth measurements are. I've got a couple ideas for you but they're going to take some time to flesh out.
I threw the turntable down just so you could get an idea of what the size is.
Is the turnback loop abso-looply necessary, if you're going to have the ability for a continuous run? Eliminating the loop and making it into a normal curve to bridge over the door way would give you considerably more real estate for the yard and turntable - including giving you the option to have the full size roundhouse.