Okay, there is more space than I thought. Apparently, there can be aisles on the outside of the layout all the way around.
- Douglas
Thanks, Bear. I appreciate the effort.
The first drawing baffles me somewhat in that it just seems to be a sort of deformed oval. What's the advantage over prior drawings?
The second drawing is very similar to Bear's earlier drawing, and I remain convinced that it is superior in all respects. The earlier drawing made provision to choose to enter or bypass the peninsula, adding interest to the layout.
It seems to me that a square footprint limits the opportunities to add interest to what otherwise becomes a circular layout for all practical purposes. While the overall square footage is decent at 200 square feet (14' x 14.5'), some sort of rectangular footprint would provide more opportunities for sidings and spurs. I think that is what Sheldon had in mind when he mused over a possible 26' x 9' footprint.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrainI am having a difficult time visualing this proposed Z-layout. Can someone draw it?
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
dehusman NVSRR it does sit off the two walls by 2 feet. If that's the case then why not JaBears 2nd plan modified to be a Z. Return loop in the NW and SE corner, wide benchwork along the north and south sides and diagonal NE to SW middle bench. You don't operate it from the "inside" you operate it from the "outside". All the benchwork has a backdrop down the middle with a scene on either side.
NVSRR it does sit off the two walls by 2 feet.
If that's the case then why not JaBears 2nd plan modified to be a Z. Return loop in the NW and SE corner, wide benchwork along the north and south sides and diagonal NE to SW middle bench. You don't operate it from the "inside" you operate it from the "outside". All the benchwork has a backdrop down the middle with a scene on either side.
Can someone draw it?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL 26' x 9' would make a much better layout.
26' x 9' would make a much better layout.
NVSRR Bears first though of it being in a bigger space is correct. It sits in a 26 x 26 building. 15 x 15 is the dedicted space for the layout area. rest is workshop and storage. it does sit off the two walls by 2 feet. Stands alone,no wall supoport. The configuration can be shifted around as long as either the generl square footage of the areas are maintained or the layout design is smaller. doenst have to fill that whole area SHane
Bears first though of it being in a bigger space is correct. It sits in a 26 x 26 building. 15 x 15 is the dedicted space for the layout area. rest is workshop and storage. it does sit off the two walls by 2 feet. Stands alone,no wall supoport. The configuration can be shifted around as long as either the generl square footage of the areas are maintained or the layout design is smaller. doenst have to fill that whole area
SHane
Sheldon
dehusman NVSRR it does sit off the two walls by 2 feet. If that's the case then why not JaBears 2nd plan modified to be a Z. Return loop in the NW and SE corner, wide benchwork along the north and south sides and diagonal NE to SW middle bench. You don't operate it from the "inside" you operate it from the "outside". All the benchwork has a backdrop down the middle with a scene on either side. You get continuous running with no duckunders, you get visually "pure" scenes. If you make the benchwork on the straights a series of sections, one for each "side", then the layout could be disassembled and possibly reconfigured as an around the walls layout later. Everybody will tell you an around the wall layout is better, but you aren't doing that in the first place, so it doesn't matter. You are building an island, leverage the strengths of an island layout to your advantage.
You get continuous running with no duckunders, you get visually "pure" scenes. If you make the benchwork on the straights a series of sections, one for each "side", then the layout could be disassembled and possibly reconfigured as an around the walls layout later.
Everybody will tell you an around the wall layout is better, but you aren't doing that in the first place, so it doesn't matter. You are building an island, leverage the strengths of an island layout to your advantage.
I agree! With no walls, I would also do a Z shaped, self-standing layout. Bonus: if you move, you can probably take it with you without too much damage, if you plan it that way. A coal mine at one end (in montainous scenery), and industry/yard at the other end. I wish I had space to do that...
Simon
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
Now, and don’t ask me why, I got the impression that the layout area was part of as larger basement and had access on at least, two sides, as peninsulas are space gobbling devices and require such access.
richhotrainThat makes Bear's first proposed track plan superior in many respects
NVSRR Not doing duck unders since I do have back problems and now slight balance problems from a stroke. so lift sections or no sections at all.
Not doing duck unders since I do have back problems and now slight balance problems from a stroke. so lift sections or no sections at all.
Shane
rrebell Duck unders are never a good idea. Just because you are in perfect health dosn't mean you can't step wrong and have a wobble for a few weeks, had that happen twice in the last 5 years, first time I could barely walk for a few days and I can keep up with the 20 year olds on class 3 trails. Oh and the stepping wrong happened walking down a concreat sidewalk that first time.
Duck unders are never a good idea. Just because you are in perfect health dosn't mean you can't step wrong and have a wobble for a few weeks, had that happen twice in the last 5 years, first time I could barely walk for a few days and I can keep up with the 20 year olds on class 3 trails. Oh and the stepping wrong happened walking down a concreat sidewalk that first time.
Well they don't have to be duck unders, they can be lift outs, or lift ups, swinging gates like the one that appeared in a "different" magazine a year or so ago. I am seriously consdering that for mine.
The well published Severna Park Model Railroad Club which has appeard in MR 5 or 6 times in the last 60 years has a duck under, no casualties yet..... even with the public coming in for open houses.
Radius of the curves is a big factor as well, as others have mentioned. With 6 axle diesels, you need, at minimum, 22" radius. Sheldon would argue for more, and he would be right if you have long passenger cars or freight cars.
The point I am making is that if you want a loop for continuous operation, then doing that without a liftout involves large return loops at least 46" wide. That creates reach problems. For that reason, the liftout option, with track running along the walls with 24'' shelves is preferable. Otherwise, you need to think how you will reach that darn loco that derailed in the loop, against the wall... It's also easier to build scenery when every inch of the layout is easily reachable.
The area I. Question has mostly single track and for most of its time it has been that way. Might have been a few double track areas at one time.
I did have double track at one time. . I do see the advantage.
I take it the general consensus is the original isn't any good.
shane
I agree with Sheldon. A plan for this size should be around the room with a duckunder/liftout at the entrance. Peninsulas would probably not add much to operations and risk just being in the way of better elbow room. If you want to store stuff underneath the layout...skinny aisles make it hard to stoop without bumping your head or shoulders on the way back up. Maybe one side could have a little bump-in for a slight curve on one of the four walls.
I would have a town from 7 oclock to 11 o clock and then another from 3 oclock to 6 oclock with the liftout in the SW corner dead space. Operate it point to point style but simply run laps around the room to build up simulated distance between towns. Its important for a small layout to have that continuous running feature.
A double mainline would allow the train to use the outer loop for gathering lapping distance and then cross into the inner loop to pull into the stations.
And then there are the times you simply want to run two trains in opposite directions just because you can.
The plan could also have room for two or more staging tracks along a wall, possibly hidden behind a partial ridge. Another bonus of being able to have wider shelves since there wouldn't be a peninsula.
richhotrain NVSRR I can see potential in Bear's last design. I still like Bear's first design, with or without my suggested modifications. A lot more interesting than the second design which is way too basic for me. And, there is no need for a lift out on the first design. I also like the idea of a double mainline. Rich
NVSRR I can see potential in Bear's last design.
I can see potential in Bear's last design.
I still like Bear's first design, with or without my suggested modifications. A lot more interesting than the second design which is way too basic for me. And, there is no need for a lift out on the first design.
I also like the idea of a double mainline.
The problem I see with Bear's first plan is there isn't a convenient long enough straight section for a decent yard. Bear's second plan allows for that along the left wall. You could also add a staging track or two behind the yard hidden with a low backdrop.
Ray
rrebell First off if you want to do a continuous run, fiqure out your min radius and find two places in the room that a circle of that size fits. Then connect the two any way you want and the work your other stuff into it.
First off if you want to do a continuous run, fiqure out your min radius and find two places in the room that a circle of that size fits. Then connect the two any way you want and the work your other stuff into it.
I will suggest again that being inside the circle and avoiding "balloon" loops is much more effective in a space of this size and well worth the duck under/lift out compromize.
If you want staging or a longer run, go twice around hiding some parts of the run.
Our selectively compressed curves look better from the inside.
Continuity of direction, left is west, right is east, is maintained making operations more logical and simpler.
And there is no real estate "inside the loops" that is hard to justify or use.
richhotrain snjroy Hi there. You definitely have room for a single mainline with 2 return loops at each end for an open entry into the room. The question is: do you want a double mainline or not. A double mainline adds to the fun and is quite dooable with a liftout. dehusman richhotrain I also like the idea of a double mainline. A double main would completely change the feel of the layout. Given the footprint of the proposed layout, there probably isn't sufficient room for a double mainline, but I still like the idea. Rich
snjroy Hi there. You definitely have room for a single mainline with 2 return loops at each end for an open entry into the room. The question is: do you want a double mainline or not. A double mainline adds to the fun and is quite dooable with a liftout.
Hi there. You definitely have room for a single mainline with 2 return loops at each end for an open entry into the room. The question is: do you want a double mainline or not. A double mainline adds to the fun and is quite dooable with a liftout.
dehusman richhotrain I also like the idea of a double mainline. A double main would completely change the feel of the layout.
richhotrain I also like the idea of a double mainline.
A double main would completely change the feel of the layout.
Given the footprint of the proposed layout, there probably isn't sufficient room for a double mainline, but I still like the idea.
Double track does not take much extra room. Being able to go 2" larger on the curves is the biggest space consideration for double track.
A layout this size would definately be better in double track.
A double main line would fit if the curved track on the bottom left extends to the liftout (Dr. Wayne has done this, I can pull it up if needed). Or if the liftout is moved a few feet on the right. My train room is 11'X7' and I have a liftout with two mainlines (22" radius). It's tight, but it fits and it is perfectly functional.
richhotrainI also like the idea of a double mainline.
A double main would completely change the feel of the layout. Not saying it can't be done or isn't appropriate, there are lots spun off secondary routes of the PC/RDG/LV in the east that were double track at one time.
As far as two levels goes, one coud easily split the line at some point and have the portion on the center peninsula on one level and one of the two spurs at the bottom on a separate level. Very common in SE PA to have multiple lines in the same valley on different level (most likely different railroads that could have been spun off by CR.
Hi there. You definitely have room for a single mainline with 2 return loops at each end for an open entry into the room. The question is: do you want a double mainline or not. A double mainline adds to the fun and is quite dooable with a liftout. I have a liftout - not that hard to do (If you've never built one, I suggest you do a search to see what are the best practices). My liftout is hinged, has two lines of track and is most often in an up-right position. You'd be surprised the number of times you go in and out of the train room with materials in your hands... Maybe do a coal mine (in some hilly terrain) at one end, and build an industrial site at the opposite side, with one or two passenger stations in between.
I'd leave space in the middle for a comfy chair or two were you can sit, watch two trains run in opposite directions, and sip your favorite beverage. Note: a track that is positioned too high cuts down your visibility if you are sitting in a comfy chair.
I forgot to mention that this is central pa and that is mostly smaller branch lines, regonals and shortlines. The only 6 axles that run now go from the yard to the quarry. Athearn and BLI untis. most of the fleet are 4 axle. trains usually around 10 caRs but can go to 14. Modern era. layout sits at about 45 inches off the floor
I can see potential in Bear's last design. Any body have ideas on something smaller or possible double level?
hon30critterI like your design. However, I might suggest that the OP do a mock up to see if the aisle widths are adequate. If the OP will be the lone operator then I don't see any problems, but if he wants to have guests then everyone had better be pretty skinny, or he needs to narrow the benchwork in a few places to allow operators to pass each other.
More in keeping with the original design but still eliminating the duck under.
Hi Bear,
I like your design. However, I might suggest that the OP do a mock up to see if the aisle widths are adequate. If the OP will be the lone operator then I don't see any problems, but if he wants to have guests then everyone had better be pretty skinny, or he needs to narrow the benchwork in a few places to allow operators to pass each other.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!