No question that what he designed is more aligned with operations than the orginal layout. I still plan on tweaking things a bit after I get the HO track drawing template.
I like having ideas to use but much prefer designing a layout than replicating one whole-sale.
kasscaboose:
Byron's design is excellent! It does way way more than your original concept. Like I said before, "the Master has spoken"!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Or ...
This very quick rough modification of a client project to match your space shows how the alternative of a spiral peninsula provides multiple working areas, a yard with separate yard lead to allow a crew to work without fouling the main, and a continuous-run option.
Minimum mainline radius is 26”, and I think that there are easements into all of the mainline curves as drawn. That’s a two-sided backdrop on the peninsula. Note that the benchwork wouldn't be all straight lines and modulates in depth, allowing better aisles.
The yard isn’t optimized (the original layout didn’t have a visible yard) and the working areas aren’t specifically designed for your industries, but these would be straightforward modifications. Most importantly, this idea would need to be revised for your room entrance, which is likely different from the original client’s situation. Spurs could certianly be added and revised; and the back tracks along the walls partially hidden with scenery or slightly elevated to add visual variety.
To me, this sort of layout footprint has more potential for long-term satisfaction than your original approach, even if that could be re-designed to be reliably built and operated. Once again, the wisdom of John Armstrong’s suggestion to try a spiral peninsula is borne out.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
The HO template is being ordered. While not perfect, better than guessing on the curves. Thanks for that brilliant suggestio!
i might put the yard in the middle part of the layout (not along a side). This would occupy one person or two. Thrn have the main along one side (one consist) and another along the other side.
Randy is right that three people can operate it. I don't want a spaghetti arrangement, so how many more sidings to add? My industries are the followin:
oil, food, grain, intermodal, and farm equipment
see below
Sure there's room for 3 operators there - assuming that crossing in the upper right is NOT at grade. One yard operator - though some more tack around there would help, maybe even a few local industries switched by the yard crew as part of their duties. Another running out the main, picking up and setting off at the interchange yard in the upper left (needs a runaround though), and a third crew running the branch from the small yard out to the end and back.
Just needs some tweaking, and definitely adjustments on the curves and turnouts using templates to get the right sizes.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
kasskaboose Byron, et. al, I'd like to have two consists working along on the mainline and a switcher in the yard. This would create operating opportunities and some switching.
Byron, et. al,
I'd like to have two consists working along on the mainline and a switcher in the yard. This would create operating opportunities and some switching.
As drawn, you can't have two consists working the mainline. There's no room for two. You can have a switcher making up trains in the yard, for sure. And you can have a local going out on the main.
Why do you want "two"? If it is to add complexity (and why not?), then you'll have to add complexity to the track plan. Imagine what it's like to run a local out of the yard. Then imagine what it's like to send another out after it. Kinda, yikes! I think you'd need a whole lotta more switches, sidings, and trackage. Not a bad thing at all. But it's gotta fit. Somehow.
Ed
cuyama And even better still, in my humble (but experienced) opinion, would be to decide what you want your layout to do before spending any additional time on drawing. Do you want to watch trains roll through scenery? How many? Do you wish to make up and tear down trains in a yard? Explore purposeful operation and switching? Some combination? Where and when does your layout exist? Would you like to replicate aspects of real-life railroading or just run for fun? (Either or a mix is fine, by the way, IMHO) Without knowing the answers to at least some of these questions for yourself, any plan that you draw up may not provide the long term involvement and enjoyment that will make it worth the construction time and money. And without knowing your interests and preferences on these things, it’s harder for folks to provide advice and suggestions. Byron
And even better still, in my humble (but experienced) opinion, would be to decide what you want your layout to do before spending any additional time on drawing. Do you want to watch trains roll through scenery? How many? Do you wish to make up and tear down trains in a yard? Explore purposeful operation and switching? Some combination? Where and when does your layout exist? Would you like to replicate aspects of real-life railroading or just run for fun? (Either or a mix is fine, by the way, IMHO)
Without knowing the answers to at least some of these questions for yourself, any plan that you draw up may not provide the long term involvement and enjoyment that will make it worth the construction time and money. And without knowing your interests and preferences on these things, it’s harder for folks to provide advice and suggestions.
The layout exists near Norfolk, VA from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s along part of the N&W line.
kasskabooseBack to the drawing board. Much better redoing the work at this stage than with the track down.
In my experience, just filling space with lines is not a path to satisfaction -- though some would (and likely will) disagree.
steemtrayn If computer programs aren't your trhing, maybe you should get one of these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Used-HO-Scale-CTT-Inc-No-5000-Track-Template-For-HO-Scale-Track-/272873135400?hash=item3f88819d28:g:2x0AAOSwDbxZ1CyC
If computer programs aren't your trhing, maybe you should get one of these:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Used-HO-Scale-CTT-Inc-No-5000-Track-Template-For-HO-Scale-Track-/272873135400?hash=item3f88819d28:g:2x0AAOSwDbxZ1CyC
Using a template can greatly reduce blunders in track layouts, but it is still possible to fudge which may result in a layout elements or even whole layouts that can't be built as designed.
What will actually work depends on the geometry of the track system (brand) particulary with regard to switches which affects angles of departure, spacing of parallel tracks, and may even effect curve radius in tight situations.
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.
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
kasskaboose Back to the drawing board. Much better redoing the work at this stage than with the track down. Ugh!
Back to the drawing board. Much better redoing the work at this stage than with the track down. Ugh!
Absolutely. I look forward to your next presentation.
Thanks everyone. I do need to redo the layout and appreciate the advice. This process is iterative, so refinment is paramount to creating a suitable layout.
For the next iteration, I plan on having the following:
1. Longer radi curves
2. Remove the middle part of the layout
3. Create an interchange track
The drawing looks to me like a preliminary sketch. And why not?
Besides dealing with curve radius, I do note that there are no run-around tracks anywhere but the yard. I'd add "some".
There's no continuous running. Which is just fine if that's what you want.
It might be nice to have an interchange track--that being a track where the 5-fingered crane adds and removes cars from the outside world.
Where is the helix, upper level, and lower staging level?
Steve
How big is your layout overall? Are you sure you want to change the curve radius?
I don;t think that will matter much, the penninsula as drawn appears to be 4 feet wide, that pretty much limits you to a 22" radius curve max, and that's comign close to the edges.
HUGE roadblock a lot of people have - benchwork does not have to be square or rectangular. If the sides adjacent to the end of the penninsula can be made narrower, the 'blob' at the end of the penninsula can be made wider than the rest of it, allowing for larger radius curves while maintaining aisle width.
One way to get broader curves into the middle peninsula would be to have the lines from the top horizontal section cross as they turn downward. That is, rather than turning to run parallel to the near sides of the peninsula, have the lines cross over and run parallel to the far sides.
I don't have access to my CAD computer at the moment so I can't make a quick sketch. Sorry.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Take Cuyamas advice to heart.
Your plan as drawn will create great frustration as you try to operate and build.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
cuyamaI don't think that this can be built and operated reliably as drawn. Your curves appear to be drawn at about 12-15" radius. Turnouts are much closer than could actually be built in a number of places. There would be many alternatives in the space with a more logical track routing that might prove more fun and interesting in the long run.
The Master has spoken!
Back to the drawing board!
I don't think that this can be built and operated reliably as drawn. Your curves appear to be drawn at about 12-15" radius. Turnouts are much closer than could actually be built in a number of places. There would be many alternatives in the space with a more logical track routing that might prove more fun and interesting in the long run.
IMHO, thinking about what you want your layout to do will help create a more engaging track plan than beginning with drawing lines.
Some folks on this forum inexplicably object to posts regarding best practices in layout design, but I think you’d be much happier in the long run with a different approach. A study of John Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation is a great start for any layout design effort.
Good luck with your layout.
Hi kasskaboose,
It looks to me like you will have less than 24" radii on your curves. That's ok provided that all your equipment can run on tight curves.
I would consider adding a run around track to the yard ladder on the right side of the layout.
I like the nice wide aisles.
Can you pls provide me feedback on the possible layout I plan on building. This is going in my new house soon. The layout is "M" shaped in HO scale that measures 16x16'.
In case the link doesn't work, pls copy and paste from below (sorry about that):
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/asadfe/media/cGF0aDovS2Fzc19sYXlvdXRfenBzb3d1anJqZGIuanBn/?ref=1