I changed the track plan again. Unfortunately I don't have acces to a computer at the moment so I cannot convert the image. It's on my website (http://chessiephotosho.weebly.com/). For reference: Green track will be lower than orange track.
I kind of figured why you wanted the loop, maybe mark it down to future expansion, maybe think vertically (two levels), not sure. Just make your planned layout easy to disassemble and reuse components if you eventually redo it (either by design, or if you have to move etc.). Hence the mention of dabbling in modular design (although there are other techniques to consider for resuablity like pins to locate your structures instead of gluing them down, mini-scenes like say a gas station with a paved forecourt, repair bays, junk piles in back that can be dropped into a hole in the scenary, and reused as a unit on a future layout. Ballast and scenicking materials (lawns, roads, streams, etc) I kind of treat as a write-off able loss, although you probably can salvage trees and fences for reuse).I'm not the "2 cents for a plugged nickle" guy, never did like that my 2 cent worth phrase anyway. Remember, you can edit your responses.
Is that the updated design you linked to? It does seem somewhat better than the one you printed out above, although the loop still remains a bit wonky. If you must have the loop, well, then yes study up on access hatch design.Also, as most of the older hands will tell you, think of what industries, scenes, structures you want, then pick the ones you really want (since you can't fit everything), and then work toward that idea in your structure purchases. "Lots of buildings on sale" leads to many unused/unbuilt buildings being sold on whatever replaces eBay 2 decades down the road.Finally, the long double track running alongside the right side of your plan kind of screams out "Free-Mo" module (stick with the standards portion of that site*, stay away from the propagand pages on that site which claim free-mo is the greatest thing since sliced bread). Still, could be cool since you're starting from scratch to have a module that you can both run with your layout, or bring to a train show to run with fellow modelers...*May need an update to those standards: "S6.5 Standard rail color on the through route is Floquil/Polly-S Roof Brown or equivalent." Oops...
chutton01 But why the loop, when you already have extensions on either side? If you have to have loop running (which is...indeed rather fun), you could re-arrange things to have the left extension become an L, and then have a removable bridge to the right extension when you feel like loop running. Other things can be changed as well (you can review some of the 459,217 layout design articles out there) if you rework the inner loop (well, morph it to something else). Also, is that an intermodal terminal of sorts drawn within your current inner loop? In my experience, 18" radius and 89ft (HO) intermodal flats (very common in the late 1980s) don't always play well (best case, they don't derail, but look kind of silly going around the curves).
But why the loop, when you already have extensions on either side? If you have to have loop running (which is...indeed rather fun), you could re-arrange things to have the left extension become an L, and then have a removable bridge to the right extension when you feel like loop running. Other things can be changed as well (you can review some of the 459,217 layout design articles out there) if you rework the inner loop (well, morph it to something else). Also, is that an intermodal terminal of sorts drawn within your current inner loop? In my experience, 18" radius and 89ft (HO) intermodal flats (very common in the late 1980s) don't always play well (best case, they don't derail, but look kind of silly going around the curves).
Well my my space is very odd and I am really lost on layout plans. I took to anyrail 6 again and updated it to my website (http://chessiephotosho.weebly.com/) but I'm not sure how well it will fare in the battle of operation. As for what looks like an intermodel facility I am unsure of what it will be yet. My local train shop always has lots of buildings on sale so I figure I'll check there for a deal. It proboly wont be intermodal.
AlexanderWhat do you think if I put an access hole in the 4x8 so I can reach the far side ( not a Gary Larson reference)
You seem married to that 4x8 block, aren't you? . May I presume that industry on the upper right corner is a coal mine? In that case, yeah, a pop-out access hatch with hilly terrain (using current lightweight scenary materials) would work. But why the loop, when you already have extensions on either side? If you have to have loop running (which is...indeed rather fun), you could re-arrange things to have the left extension become an L, and then have a removable bridge to the right extension when you feel like loop running. Other things can be changed as well (you can review some of the 459,217 layout design articles out there) if you rework the inner loop (well, morph it to something else). Also, is that an intermodal terminal of sorts drawn within your current inner loop? In my experience, 18" radius and 89ft (HO) intermodal flats (very common in the late 1980s) don't always play well (best case, they don't derail, but look kind of silly going around the curves).
Yeah that I did hand draw because of this dang 50 piece limit without pay, but of course they need to make money somehow.
AlexanderI also used anyrail 6 to design my layouts.
Sorry, I didn't look that closely. I noticed that the crossover on the branchline looked too sharp and assumed from there.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Thanks I'll have to change that. I also used anyrail 6 to design my layouts.
AlexanderI think I have the track plan I want http://chessiephotosho.weebly.com/
If that's an HO 4X8 section against two walls, you'll find the back of it out of reach once built and scenicked, unfortunately. And the hand-sketched tracks may not fit as drawn once rendered to-scale.
If you have that much room overall, something more interesting than an HO 4X8 will fit, of course.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
I think I have the track plan I want
http://chessiephotosho.weebly.com/
If there's any problems with the website working tell me. (I didn't upload the photo to the forum because I plan to add more.)
Just remember to add early CSX paint schemes to your late 80s "Chessie" and retire older locomotives like SWs,Geep 7/9s,GP35s,GP30s..
Again remember by the late 80s "Chessie" by definition was a fallen flag.
Your Chessie: http://www.trainweb.org/csxphotos/paint_CSX-yb.htm
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
You can acquire any Chessie System 4 axle unit like GP30's, GP35's, GP38 and the mentioned GP40-2 and GP7/9. The four axle Chessie U30-B and B30-7 units are rare in B&O country.
chutton01 And about 10 SD9s, which I've always kind of liked the look of.
And about 10 SD9s, which I've always kind of liked the look of.
Yes I do agree sd9S look amazing but I'll stick with gp7s
Alexander I plan to use 18" curves on the inner loop so sd40-2s are history. They might make it but it would look very unprototypical.
I plan to use 18" curves on the inner loop so sd40-2s are history. They might make it but it would look very unprototypical.
I was doing a small Chessie System layout during 1983. I'm not planning on using 6 axle locomotives.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
I found this useful website
https://www.thedieselshop.us/Chessie.HTML
Well, Chessie had 80+ SD40s going by this list, of which only about 6 didn't have the Chessie Cat Yellow/Black livery (of course, not going to verify if all those locos remained on Chessie at the OP's preferred date). About 40 SD35s as well.And about 10 SD9s, which I've always kind of liked the look of.But yes, as I mentioned 4-axle power did predominate, for exampleGP40-2.
By the way the standard power for the Chessie System were GP40-2's, they only had 20 SD40-2's that were assigned to the B&O and some older SD40's and SD35's from the B&O and Western Maryland.
Rick Jesionowski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
NittanyLion If you're doing Chessie in Virginia, you'd be all caboose. Virginia required cabooses until 1988, by which time it was CSX.
If you're doing Chessie in Virginia, you'd be all caboose. Virginia required cabooses until 1988, by which time it was CSX.
And more like Freddy was the conductor. Railroads was out to cut jobs and overhead as fast as possible.
AlexanderThanks for he info. I was wondering since the era I am modeling is phasing out cabooses and in with FREDs would I have both on my layout.? Like a caboose here a Fred there?
Absolutely but,the cabooses and the men that rode them was fast becoming a endangered species since very few trains still use cabooses..
Fred stoled my job in '84.
Alexander Anyone with experience with Chessie please feel free to comment.
I worked on the Chessie(C&O) from '78-'84 and after the merger in '87 there was no Chessie just CSX with locomotives from SCL,Seaboard System, Chessie,C&O,B&O,WM,Family Lines,L&N and other Family Line roads. This started with the formation of CSX in '80.